What works? The social science of real-world decision making€¦ · What works? The social science of real-world decision making New Partners for Smart Growth February 3, 2017 Emily

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.