Improving policy analysis for
global change issues:
a synthesis from the CISHDGC values, learning
and decision processes projects
By
Tim McDaniels
University of BC, CISHDGC
McDaniels CISHDGC talk 3/31/04
1
Outline
•
•
•
•
•
Introduction
Kinds of and structures of decisions?
Decision processes?
Approaches to values for these decisions?
Role of learning?
McDaniels CISHDGC talk 3/31/04
2
1.) Introduction
• This talk has three points of departure:
– Morgan, et al editorial: why standard
approaches to PA are insufficient for climate
change
– Hard versus soft systems analysis
– Kates et al, 2000: Sustainability science
McDaniels CISHDGC talk 3/31/04
3
Assumptions, Inadequacies of
Standard PA (Morgan, et al)
• Single DM, single problem, agreement on a single
societal view
• Non-marginal, manageable change
• Values known, static; Utility max is goal
• Time preference: discounting sensible
• Uncertainties modest, manageable
• Systems linear
McDaniels CISHDGC talk 3/31/04
4
Hard vs Soft systems analysis
(Checkland et al)
• Hard: clear decision, well bounded, values
defined, single DM, uncertainties definable,
analytical/optimization tools (OR) applicable
• Soft: problems ill defined, vaguely bounded,
values unclear, no obvious DM,
• Their view on path forward: soft/hard
complementarity; e.g., use soft systems ideas to
structure analysis for hard systems application
McDaniels CISHDGC talk 3/31/04
5
Sustainability Science
(Kates, et al, 2000)
• Recognizes limits of reductionist science for
global change problems, sustainability
• Argues for a new, integrative, multiple scale,
north/south sensitive, human/natural systems
approach to science
• Their concern is only a new perspective on science
• Says nothing about how to conduct analysis to
analyze, make choices, implement, informed by
that science
McDaniels CISHDGC talk 3/31/04
6
CISHDGC research contributions
• Many incremental steps toward addressing and
improving on the standard tools of policy analysis
for global change
• Imagine matrix of inadequacies (listed earlier) and
contributions from investigators to address them
• Need a summary effort to recognize, assemble our
findings and insights; put forward perspectives,
approaches to PA for global change
• Here focus on those associated with problem
choice, decision process, values, learning
McDaniels CISHDGC talk 3/31/04
7
2.) What kinds of decisions?
• Conventional PA for GC often addresses “the global
decision” (CC emission controls) or single level,
constrained decisions (e.g. resource management, env
health, disaster preparedness) given status quo
• We have addressed the links among decisions across
scales, time, groups
• Reasoning is that such decisions are so path dependant
(time) or scale dependant (levels of governance) we need
to address such links to make sensible progress
McDaniels CISHDGC talk 3/31/04
8
Multiple scales and levels
• Match scales of assessment, and levels of
regulation and administration to the problem
– McDaniels and Dowlatabadi (2004)
• Effective regulation across levels requires both
appropriate knowledge and effective jurisdiction
– Appropriate Knowledge: nature and dynamics of
impacts, values, alternatives
– Effective Jurisdiction: compatible with scales,
competent, legitimate
McDaniels CISHDGC talk 3/31/04
9
Implications of gaps, mismatches
• Example of salmon aquaculture
– A site-by-site regulatory regime, but cumulative
impacts are the predominant concern
– Site-based regulation not really feasible to
judge sustainability of industry
– Local governments have attempted to regulate
land use to respond to regional, provincial
concerns
McDaniels CISHDGC talk 3/31/04
10
Short term objectives for longer
term ends
• Framework of multiple objectives for
characterizing what is desired in CC
policies over the next 20 years
• Emphasis on learning as an explicit
objective
• Intent is create the capability, opportunities
for better decisions 20 years into future
– Keeney and McDaniels 2002
McDaniels CISHDGC talk 3/31/04
11
Short term decisions to get to
long term desired ends
• Georgia Basin Project, Quest
– Visualization tool, gaming, value formation
• Given an expressed desired future for a region
(where we want to go) , what are the important
near-term decisions that must be made within the
region’s governance structure to get onto the
desired paths (how to get there); what are tradeoffs
for other related decision contexts
– Charlie Wilson’s current work (2004)
McDaniels CISHDGC talk 3/31/04
12
3. Approaches to decision
processes
• Most policy analysis guides recognize benefits of
iteration, recognition of different elements of good
decision making
• Yet how to make this work on extremely complex
problems, with stakeholders, addressing GC
problems, isn’t well understood
• How to proceed through decisions, involving
whom?
McDaniels CISHDGC talk 3/31/04
13
What’s good decision process?
Hammond, Keeney and Raiffa, 1999
Smart Choices
Keeney, 1992
Value-focused thinking
Neither cast in terms of, or really address
environmental choices, particularly with
stakeholder group, which have their own kinds of
complexities
McDaniels CISHDGC talk 3/31/04
14
Efforts regarding decision
processes for GC decisions
• Conceptual: elements of process and application
for decision aiding in any context
– (McDaniels and Gregory 1996-2004)
• Experimental: good group process can lead to
improved valuation decisions (measured via
whether standard biases can be avoided)
– (McDaniels, Gregory, Arvai, Chunpagdee, 2003)
McDaniels CISHDGC talk 3/31/04
15
Applied Findings
• Water use planning efforts in BC
• Good process, attention to values, AM all
contributed to achieving great outcomes,
consensus decisions for electric utility
planning with stakeholders to balance
power, fisheries, flood control, recreation
– McDaniels, Gregory, Fields, 1999; Gregory,
McDaniels and Fields, 2002; others in process
McDaniels CISHDGC talk 3/31/04
16
Participatory Action processes
• Will Trousdale’s work in Philippines and
Jamil Bundalli’s work in Kenya shows that
VFT is a good way to structure, conduct
participatory action research (Tourism, rural
energy planning)
• McDaniels and Trousdale (1996)
• Jamil’s MSc project draft underway (2004)
McDaniels CISHDGC talk 3/31/04
17
4.) Values and Valuation
• Multiple objective approaches seem only sensible
basis for valuation of global change issues:
– fewer strict assumptions about decision rules, how
values are measured, role of income (How much should
society pay, not how much are you WTP)
– McDaniels, 2001, Encyclopedia of GC
• Judgment tasks must be kept manageable, help
construct values in context
– Voting, referendum notions for preference elicitation
– McDaniels, 1996, McDaniels and Thomas, 2000
McDaniels CISHDGC talk 3/31/04
18
Values for Non-marginal change
• Work on compensation for Metis lands
losses has helped us understand both what is
needed to value non-marginal change, and
applied approaches for work with
indigenous people on valuing their
intangible, spiritual, cultural losses from
loss of resources over 50 years
– McDaniels and Trousdale, 2004
McDaniels CISHDGC talk 3/31/04
19
What is needed for valuing,
compensating for NMC?
• A legal property rights regime establishing compensation for losses (all
kinds)
• envisioning what the future(s) could be with and without the change
• Understanding what other changes will go on around, outside of this
particular change (the context)
• judging what values matter in comparing with and without cases
• Judging the relative importance of the range of values affected by the
change, from the viewpoint of the affected parties
• Use of a metric, method for aggregation, across the different kinds of
values, w and w/o the change (indirect processing out if one impact is
in dollars)
• Some means of addressing the impact changes, aggregation over time
• Using the results to argue for compensation, or better still, the kinds of
actions to mitigate losses
McDaniels CISHDGC talk 3/31/04
20
Valuation within context of
alternatives
• Issues of evaluability (Hsee)
• Experimental work on values within a
structured process, with alts, and a context,
compared to standard practice
• Use of structured decision process reduces
standard heuristics, biases (embedding)
McDaniels CISHDGC talk 3/31/04
21
5.) Learning (AM) as a strategy
• Three projects concerned with learning
• Objectives that comprise a framework for for short
term CC policy decisions that emphasize learning
– Keeney and McDaniels 2001
• Treating learning as an objective in working with
SH groups, the value of learning
– McDaniels and Gregory 2004
McDaniels CISHDGC talk 3/31/04
22
Newest AM project: learning
plan for salmon aquaculture
• Developing a “learning plan”for salmon
aquaculture
• First step: what are the questions people
want to answer (SH workshop, some
problems)
• Future steps: refining questions, developing
strategies to answer them, setting priorities
• Other parts: a FN plan, Issues of time
McDaniels CISHDGC talk 3/31/04
23
6. Conclusions, implications
• The effort to build new approaches to policy
analysis that can adequately address the
kinds of issues called for in Sustainability
Science could take as much work as, is
linked to, the science itself
• It is at least as important as the science in
making better decisions
McDaniels CISHDGC talk 3/31/04
24
Where we have come to
• In total, the UBC work has made some progress
on parts of the agenda for building the new PA
– We have highlighted only some of it (nothing here on
risk perception, risk communication, other work on
values and decision making we have pursued)
• Our emphasis has been on the problem-structuring
and values-based side
• Far more needed, huge opportunities
• Making better decisions is a big concern for
making new science relevant and helpful
McDaniels CISHDGC talk 3/31/04
25