What works? The social science of real-world decision making€¦ · What works? The social science...
Transcript of What works? The social science of real-world decision making€¦ · What works? The social science...
Whatworks?Thesocialscienceofreal-worlddecisionmaking
NewPartnersforSmartGrowthFebruary3,2017
EmilyEisenhauer,PhDAAASScience&TechnologyPolicyFellowEPAOfficeofResearchandDevelopment
Unpackingdecisions
Problem+Information=Solution?
Adisconnectinthescienceofdecisions
Prescriptive DescriptiveHowweshouldmakedecisions How weactuallymakedecisions
Moreinformationisbetter… …butwe useshortcutsandemotionstoprocessit.
Forexample:
Topics:
1. Frameworksforpublicdecisionmaking2. AvoidingbehavioraltrapsthroughStructuredDecisionMaking3. Roleofvalues andconflict
Frameworksforpublicdecisionmaking
• Projectplanning/siteselection– expertdrivenwithpubliccomment• Urbanplanning– expertledwithpublicinput• StructuredDecisionMaking– deliberationswithstakeholders• CollaborativeProblemSolving– negotiationwithmulti-stakeholderpartnerships
----------------------• Policywindows– thepoliticsofpolicychange
PolicyWindows
• Roleofknowledgeandinformation(Ashfordetal.2006):• focusingattentiononissuestogetthemonthepolicyagenda(agenda-setting)• creatingorstrengtheningcoalitionsthatsustainattentionaroundanissue(coalitionbuilding)• Increasingknowledgeofpolicymakers(policylearning)
• Technicalorscientificfactsmustbetranslatedintopoliticalorsocialfactsinordertogeneratewidesupportforpolicychanges(PorterandHicks1995).
Participatoryprocesses
• E.g.CollaborativeProblemSolving,participatoryplanning,SDM• Advantages• Legitimacy• Equity• Transparency• Leveragesdiversityofknowledge
• Pitfalls• Psychologicaltraps• Exclusion• Intensityofresources• Specialagendas• Lackofexpertise
StructuredDecisionMaking
• Thecollaborativeandfacilitatedapplicationofmultipleobjectivedecisionmakingandgroupdeliberationmethodstoenvironmentalmanagementandpublicpolicyproblems.(Gregoryetal.2012)
Clarifydecisioncontext
Defineobjectivesandmeasures
Developalternatives
Estimateconsequences
Evaluatetrade-offsandselect
Implement,monitorand
review
1.Clarifythedecisioncontext
• Whatisthedecisiontobemade?• Whowillbeaffectedbythedecision?• Bywhomandwhen?• Whatistherangeofalternativesandobjectivesthatcanbeconsidered?• Whatkindsofanalyticaltoolswillbeneeded?• Whatlevelofconsultationisappropriate?
Example:ImprovefisherymanagementfortheCultus LakeSockeyesalmon
2.DefineObjectivesandMeasures
• Whatmatters?
• Whatdoyouwanttoachieve?
• Howwouldyoumeasureit?
Examples:Environment,economy
SockeyeconservationMinimizecostsMaximizejobs
Populationsize,probabilityofextinctionTotalcostsNumberofjobscreated
3.Developalternatives
• Whataresomepossiblesolutionstotheproblem?
End objective Meansobjective Alternatives
Sockeyeconservation Increasepopulationsize BreedincaptivityConservehabitat Limitcommercial
developmentImprovehabitat Restoreriver
Maximize economicbenefit
Createjobs Promotesportfishing
4.Estimateconsequences
• Whatistheimpactofeachalternativeontheobjectives?
Performancemeasure
Alternative1Commercial
Alternative2Spread thePain
Objective1Sockeye conservation
Population size 47.7 28.7
Objective2Minimizecosts
Totalcosts 588 328
Objective3Maximize jobs
Total FTE’s 4.1 2.5
5.Evaluatetrade-offsandselectalternative
• Whatalternativeprovidesanacceptablebalanceacrossobjectives?• Process:
1. Rankalternativesindividually firsttoavoidbeinginfluencedbythegroup.2. Createascoreforeachalternativebyassigningweights,basedonvalues,toeach
performancemeasure,andthencomparescores.3. Presentresultstothegroupfordiscussion.
• Thedecisionisnotmadebyaformula,buttheanalyticalprocessimprovesthinkingandcommunicationsaboutconcernsandtrade-offs.
Weighting
• Assignaweighttoeachperformancemeasure
Performancemeasure
Weight Alternative1Score
Alternative2Score
Population size 50% 1.5 1Totalcosts -40% -1.2 -0.8Total FTE’s 10% 0.3 0.2TotalScore 100% 0.6 0.4
5.Evaluatetrade-offsandselectalternative
• Avoidunnecessarytrade-offsbyiterativelydevelopinghigh-qualityalternativesthatfindwin-winswhereverpossible.• Exposeunavoidabletrade-offsandpromoteconstructivedeliberationaboutthem.• Maketrade-offsexplicitandtransparent,informedbyagoodunderstandingofconsequencesandtheirsignificance• Createabasisforcommunicatingtherationaleforadecisiontoabroaderpublic.
Theonly“bad”trade-offsaretheoneswemakeunknowinglyorwithoutfullyappreciatingtheirimplications.
6.Implement,monitor,review
• Whowillberesponsiblefortrackingtheperformancemeasuresfortheobjectives?• Howandwhenwilltheybereported?• Whatwilltriggerreviewofsolutions?
Avoidingbehavioralpitfallsofdecisionmaking
• Someindividuallimitations• Shortcutsand“rulesofthumb”
• Satisficing• Ignoringgapsinknowledge
• Emotions• Positiveemotionsencouragecreativity• Negativeemotionsencourageanalyticalthinking
• Framingbias• Framingbiasisreducedwhenpeopleuseelaboratedformsofthinkingtodevelopmorecomplexandbalanceddecisionframes.
• Groupdynamics• Pressuretoconform- consensus• Commonknowledge• TechniqueslikeDevil’sAdvocacy,Delphiprocess,andGuidedDecisionSupportSystemsprovidestructuretominimizethesepitfalls.
TheroleofvaluesinSDM
• Identifyingobjectives/Constructionofpreferences• Laysoutwhatoutcomesmatter• Peopleconstructpreferencesforagivensituationbasedonvaluesorworldviews
• Weightingalternatives• Makesexplicitwhatvaluesunderlietheselectionofacourseofaction
• Examplesofvaluesquestionsindecisionmaking:• Whatthingsshouldbeconsidered?• Whatistheirrelativeimportance?• Whattrade-offsareacceptable?• Howacceptablearealternativesthathaveasmallbutnon-zeroprobabilityofanextremeoutcome?
• Whatistherelativeimportanceofimmediateversuslongertermbenefits?
UnderstandingLocalOpposition
• InterestsdependonproximitytoLULU• Localopposition– costsareperceivedashighbythosedirectlyimpacted• Outsideopposition– representbroaderinterestsrelatedtoeconomic,social,politicalissues• Support– dispersedbenefitsmeanshardertoconnectwithsupporters
• Perceptionsimpactresponses• Presence,nature,anddistributionofimpactsandbenefits• Fairnessoftheprocess• Mistrustofexperts
• ThePublicseeks“zerorisk,”whereasexpertsrecognizethetechnicallimitationsandhighlyprohibitivecostofachievingthisideal
• Disagreementsamongexpertsconfusespublicandincreasesadversarialdebate
DealingwithLocalOpposition
• Compensation– butcanaddtomistrust• Communicatingaboutimpacts
• Mustaddressalltypesofperceivedrisks,e.g.health,economic• Solidtranslationbetweenscientificinformationandrisks• Transparencyofinformation• Empowerriskbearers,e.g.citizenscience,communityadvisoryboards,goodneighboragreements
• Makeitlocal- thisfixesaproblemformyneighbors/peopleIcareaboutmost.• Communicatethroughtrustworthysources.
• Consensusbuilding• Negotiationperceivedasfairestsitingmechanism• Affectedstakeholderswillonlybelievethattheproposedfacilityisappropriateif:
1. thefacilityaddressesapressingsocietalneed,2. thereappears tobenobettersolution totheproblem,3. all“reasonable” risk-reductionmeasureshavebeentaken,and4. thedecisionofwheretobuildthefacilitywasafairone.
DealingwithLocalOpposition(continued)
• IsNIMBYismareactiontoanattempttoselladecisionalreadymade?
• Institutionalchange• Promoteconsistencyandcertaintyduringsitingprocess• RequiresufficientanalysisofpotentialimpactsandneedforproposedLULU• Addressthesourceoftheproblem,e.g.reducewaste• Formallyconsidercitizenconcernsasexpertsonvalues
Whatissuccess?
• Adecisionhasbeenmadeconsideringallfactors• Thedecisionreflectsdesiredoutcomes,e.g.protectinghealthortheenvironment• Stakeholdersaresatisfiedorwillingtolivewiththeoutcome• Socialcapitalhasbeenincreased• Thedecisionleadstoaction
Resources
• EPADASEES• RobinGregoryetal.,2012,StructuredDecisionMaking:APracticalGuidetoEnvironmentalManagementChoices• SimonFrenchetal.,2009,DecisionBehavior,AnalysisandSupport• JosephArvai etal.2012,Decision-makingforSustainability• Schively,Carissa.2007.“UnderstandingtheNIMBYandLULUPhenomena:ReassessingOurKnowledgeBaseandInformingFutureResearch.”JournalofPlanningLiterature.