IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v9y2016i1p54-d86590.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Choice Architecture as a Way to Encourage a Whole Systems Design Perspective for More Sustainable Infrastructure

Author

Listed:
  • Nora Harris

    (Charles Edward Via, Jr., Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Virginia Tech, 200 Patton Hall, Blacksburg, VA 24061, USA)

  • Tripp Shealy

    (Charles Edward Via, Jr., Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Virginia Tech, 200 Patton Hall, Blacksburg, VA 24061, USA)

  • Leidy Klotz

    (Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering and School of Architecture, University of Virginia, Thornton Hall B228, 351 McCormick Road, Charlottesville, VA 22904, USA)

Abstract

Across fields, more sustainable and resilient outcomes are being realized through a whole systems design perspective, which guides decision-makers to consider the entire system affected including interdependent physical and social networks. Although infrastructure is extremely interdependent, consisting of diverse stakeholders and networks, the infrastructure design and construction process is often fragmented. This fragmentation can result in unnecessary tradeoffs, leading to poor outcomes for certain stakeholders and the surrounding environment. A whole systems design perspective would help connect this fragmented industry and lead to more sustainable outcomes. For example, a whole systems design approach to relieve traffic on a highway might see beyond the obvious, but often ineffective, response of adding a new vehicle lane to encourage a solution such as repurposing existing road lanes from automobiles to above-ground “subway” systems. This paper discusses influences to whole systems design and how intentional choice architecture, meaning the way decisions are posed, can nudge decision-makers to employ whole systems design and result in more sustainable infrastructure. By uncovering these influences and organizing them by the social, organizational, and individual levels of the infrastructure design process, this paper provides the needed foundation for interdisciplinary research to help harness these influences through choice architecture and whole systems design for the infrastructure industry.

Suggested Citation

  • Nora Harris & Tripp Shealy & Leidy Klotz, 2016. "Choice Architecture as a Way to Encourage a Whole Systems Design Perspective for More Sustainable Infrastructure," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(1), pages 1-16, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:9:y:2016:i:1:p:54-:d:86590
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/9/1/54/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/9/1/54/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Herbert A. Simon, 1955. "A Behavioral Model of Rational Choice," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 69(1), pages 99-118.
    2. Lars-Hendrik Roller & Leonard Waverman, 2001. "Telecommunications Infrastructure and Economic Development: A Simultaneous Approach," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 91(4), pages 909-923, September.
    3. Richard H. Thaler & Shlomo Benartzi, 2004. "Save More Tomorrow (TM): Using Behavioral Economics to Increase Employee Saving," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 112(S1), pages 164-187, February.
    4. Nora Harris & Tripp Shealy & Leidy Klotz, 2016. "How Exposure to ”Role Model” Projects Can Lead to Decisions for More Sustainable Infrastructure," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(2), pages 1-9, January.
    5. Andrews, Clinton J. & Krogmann, Uta, 2009. "Technology diffusion and energy intensity in US commercial buildings," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(2), pages 541-553, February.
    6. Shlomo Benartzi & Richard H. Thaler, 1995. "Myopic Loss Aversion and the Equity Premium Puzzle," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 110(1), pages 73-92.
    7. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    8. Fischhoff, Baruch & Kadvany, John, 2011. "Risk: A Very Short Introduction," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780199576203.
    9. Clement Smartt & Susan Ferreira, 2011. "Advancing systems engineering in support of the bid and proposal process," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 14(3), pages 255-266, September.
    10. Klotz, Leidy & Mack, Daniel & Klapthor, Brent & Tunstall, Casey & Harrison, Jennilee, 2010. "Unintended anchors: Building rating systems and energy performance goals for U.S. buildings," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(7), pages 3557-3566, July.
    11. Levin, Irwin P. & Schneider, Sandra L. & Gaeth, Gary J., 1998. "All Frames Are Not Created Equal: A Typology and Critical Analysis of Framing Effects," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 76(2), pages 149-188, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Thembani Moyo & Siphiwe Mbatha & Oluwayemi-Oniya Aderibigbe & Trynos Gumbo & Innocent Musonda, 2022. "Assessing Spatial Variations of Traffic Congestion Using Traffic Index Data in a Developing City: Lessons from Johannesburg, South Africa," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(14), pages 1-16, July.
    2. Kunal Rajesh Lahoti & Shivani Hanji & Pratik Kamble & Kavita Vemuri, 2023. "Impact of Loss-Framing and Risk Attitudes on Insurance Purchase: Insights from a Game-like Interface Study," Papers 2310.13300, arXiv.org.
    3. Dalya Ismael & Tripp Shealy, 2018. "Sustainable Construction Risk Perceptions in the Kuwaiti Construction Industry," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-17, June.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Delgado, Laura & Shealy, Tripp, 2018. "Opportunities for greater energy efficiency in government facilities by aligning decision structures with advances in behavioral science," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 82(P3), pages 3952-3961.
    2. Stefano DellaVigna, 2009. "Psychology and Economics: Evidence from the Field," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 47(2), pages 315-372, June.
    3. Thomas Holtfort, 2019. "From standard to evolutionary finance: a literature survey," Management Review Quarterly, Springer, vol. 69(2), pages 207-232, June.
    4. Eduard Marinov, 2017. "The 2017 Nobel Prize in Economics," Economic Thought journal, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences - Economic Research Institute, issue 6, pages 117-159.
    5. Committee, Nobel Prize, 2017. "Richard H. Thaler: Integrating Economics with Psychology," Nobel Prize in Economics documents 2017-1, Nobel Prize Committee.
    6. Beshears, John & Kosowsky, Harry, 2020. "Nudging: Progress to date and future directions," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 161(S), pages 3-19.
    7. Marianne Bertrand & Dean S. Karlan & Sendhil Mullainathan & Eldar Shafir & Jonathan Zinman, 2005. "What's Psychology Worth? A Field Experiment in the Consumer Credit Market," Working Papers 918, Economic Growth Center, Yale University.
    8. Leković Milјan, 2020. "Cognitive Biases as an Integral Part of Behavioral Finance," Economic Themes, Sciendo, vol. 58(1), pages 75-96, March.
    9. Schunk, Daniel, 2009. "Behavioral heterogeneity in dynamic search situations: Theory and experimental evidence," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 33(9), pages 1719-1738, September.
    10. Tian, Ye & Li, Yudi & Sun, Jian, 2022. "Stick or carrot for traffic demand management? Evidence from experimental economics," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 160(C), pages 235-254.
    11. Francisco Gomes & Michael Haliassos & Tarun Ramadorai, 2021. "Household Finance," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 59(3), pages 919-1000, September.
    12. Kaivanto, Kim & Kroll, Eike B., 2012. "Negative recency, randomization device choice, and reduction of compound lotteries," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 115(2), pages 263-267.
    13. Gerlinde Fellner & Matthias Sutter, 2009. "Causes, Consequences, and Cures of Myopic Loss Aversion – An Experimental Investigation," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 119(537), pages 900-916, April.
    14. Jacobs Martin, 2016. "Accounting for Changing Tastes: Approaches to Explaining Unstable Individual Preferences," Review of Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 67(2), pages 121-183, August.
    15. Katharina Dowling & Daniel Guhl & Daniel Klapper & Martin Spann & Lucas Stich & Narine Yegoryan, 2020. "Behavioral biases in marketing," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 48(3), pages 449-477, May.
    16. James Alm & Lilith Burgstaller & Arrita Domi & Amanda März & Matthias Kasper, 2023. "Nudges, Boosts, and Sludge: Using New Behavioral Approaches to Improve Tax Compliance," Economies, MDPI, vol. 11(9), pages 1-22, September.
    17. F. Knobloch & J. -F. Mercure, 2016. "The behavioural aspect of green technology investments: a general positive model in the context of heterogeneous agents," Papers 1603.06888, arXiv.org.
    18. Ning Du & David V. Budescu, 2005. "The Effects of Imprecise Probabilities and Outcomes in Evaluating Investment Options," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 51(12), pages 1791-1803, December.
    19. Jesse Atkinson & Alain de Janvry & Craig McIntosh & Elisabeth Sadoulet, 2013. "Prompting Microfinance Borrowers to Save: A Field Experiment from Guatemala," Economic Development and Cultural Change, University of Chicago Press, vol. 62(1), pages 21-64.
    20. William Morrison, Robert Oxoby, 2016. "Risk Taking, Intertemporal Choice, and Loss Aversion," LCERPA Working Papers 0096, Laurier Centre for Economic Research and Policy Analysis, revised 01 Jul 2016.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:9:y:2016:i:1:p:54-:d:86590. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.