when asked to make an informed choice, do people prefer nuclear

YEA

RS20WHEN ASKED TO MAKE AN INFORMED CHOICE, DO PEOPLE PREFER NUCLEAR POWER?DR. JOE ÁRVAI, Erb Institute for Global Sustainable Enterprise

e: [email protected] ▪︎ @DecisionLab

YEA

RS20

BIG IMPACT / BOLD IDEAS @ D e c i s i o n L a b

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

▸ Doug Bessette

▸ Joule Bergerson

▸ Victoria Campbell

▸ Robin Gregory

▸ Richard Grogan

▸ Robyn Wilson

▸ Carbon Management Canada

▸ Compass Resource Management

▸ Insightrix Research

▸ Knowledge Networks

▸ Michigan State University Board of Trustees

▸ National Science Foundation

▸ Suncor Energy

YEA

RS20


ENERGY TRANSITIONS: A COMMON NARRATIVE

▸ Consultation involving decision-makers, key stakeholders, and content area experts.

▸ Deliberation, negotiation, and if necessary, conflict resolution.

▸ Transparency and trust with respect to the participants and the process.

▸ Great science upon which to base choices; a.k.a. “science-based decision-making”.

YEA

RS20


ENERGY TRANSITIONS: A COMMON NARRATIVE

PhysicsChemistry

EngineeringMedicine

Public HealthPolitical Science

Public PolicyEconomicsSociology

CommunicationsApplied Psychology

JDM?

YEA

RS20


THE SCIENCE OF JUDGMENT & DECISION-MAKING

▸ Focuses on the what and the why.

▸ There are dozens — at least — of questions we could ask…1. To what extent to people account for “technical” information when

making decisions? 2. To what extent do people make decisions that are in line with their

values and priorities?

YEA

RS20







YEA

RS20



Hsee, C. K. 1998. Less is better: When low-value options are valued more highly than high-value options. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 11:107-121.

YEA

RS20



Crime Deer Overpop.

Human Health Risk Lower Higher

Environmental Risk Lower Higher

>Separate Evaluation

Joint Evaluation >Wilson, R. S., and J. L. Arvai. 2006. When less is more: How affect influences preferences when comparing low and high-risk options. Journal of Risk Research 9:165-178.

YEA

RS20







YEA

RS20


CARS

Attribute UnitsToyota Camry

Ford Fusion

Volkswagen Passat

Hyundai Sonata

Volvo S60

Price Dollars (⇣) $27,850 $27,095 $34,100 $23,995 $37,750

Fuel Consumption L/100km (⇣) 7.8 9 7.7 7.3 10.2

GHG Emissions Tonnes CO2/yr. (⇣) 4.7 5.1 4.4 4.8 5.4

Safety Rating Consumer Reports (⇡) 4.7 4.3 4.8 4.8 5.0

Quality & reliability Consumer Reports: 0-5 (⇡) 4.3 3.3 4.3 3.7 3.0

YEA

RS20


CARS

Version W [95% CI]

Rank: Exposed 0.73 (+/- 0.02)

Rank: Blind 0.81 (+/- 0.02)

Quality

Safety

GHGsL/100km

Price

YEA

RS20


ENERGY & CLIMATE CHANGE

Version W [95% CI]

Rank: Exposed 0.63 (+/- 0.02)

Rank: Blind 0.62 (+/- 0.02)

Cost

Public Opposition

CatastopheTemp.

GHG

YEA

RS20


CALIBRATION ACROSS CONTEXTS

Calib

ratio

n (W

)

0.6

0.68

0.76

0.84

0.92

1

CARS APARTMENT RENTAL INVESTMENTS SYRIA ENERGY & CLIMATE CHANGE

Exposed Blind

YEA

RS20


DECISION SCIENCE AND ENERGY STRATEGY▸ These results point to a couple of potential pitfalls (among a great many) for

decision makers:

▸ Affective responses (emotions) are powerful drivers of judgment and preference.

▸ Decision-makers have a tendency to anchor on certain cues, and use these as the basis for their judgments and preferences, even if they do not help to adequately characterize decisions at hand.

▸ There appears to be a persistent lack of internal consistency in evaluations of alternatives.

YEA

RS20


DECISION SCIENCE AND ENERGY STRATEGY

▸ What we think we know:

▸ When we make important decisions, our affective and analytic systems should be working in unison.

▸ Anchoring on a small set of important attributes is okay if prioritization is the product analyzing of key tradeoffs.

▸ Decisions that require greater accuracy, also require greater effort.

▸ A hallmark of decision quality is internal consistency.

YEA

RS20



1

Define decision problems (o

r

opportunitie

s) and constr

aints

2

Identify objective

s and appropriate

perform

ance measures

3

Develop creative, a

nd substa

ntially

different a

lternatives

4

Forecast consequences

and key u

ncertainties

5

Confront tr

adeoffs

directly

↷↶ ↷↶ ↷↶ ↷↶ ↷↶ 6

Adaptive

management

YEA

RS20


DECISION SCIENCE AND ENERGY STRATEGY▸ An applied research effort to design and test a

decision-aiding approach for energy transitions.

▸ Initial test site was MSU’s TB Simon Power Plant. Subsequent research in partnership with industry partners in Canada.▸ Highly interdisciplinary research.▸ Multi-party research involving corporate,

government, and public stakeholders.

YEA

RS20


DECISION SCIENCE AND ENERGY STRATEGY1. Meet demand.2. Increase demand-side efficiency.3. Increase fraction of renewable energy.4. Minimize capital and operating costs.5. Create full-time jobs.6. Reduce GHG emissions.7. Minimize land-use impacts.8. Reduce air pollution.9. Consider alternatives perceived as being highly innovative.

YEA

RS20



▸ Next Gen. Nuclear

▸ Biofuel

▸ Biofuel+CCS

▸ DNG

▸ NG

▸ NG+CCS

▸ Coal

▸ Coal+CCS

▸ NG+Coal (CF)

▸ Biofuel+Coal (CF)

▸ Solar Farm

▸ Dist. Solar

▸ Wind Farm

▸ Dist. Wind

▸ Fuel Cells

▸ Small Hydro

▸ Green Grid

▸ Reg. Grid

YEA

RS20


DECISION SCIENCE AND ENERGY STRATEGYGrid

Options

Interactive software developed by Compass Resource Management, Vancouver, BC, Canada. Database from Black & Veatch, Overland Park, KS, USA.

$

YEA

RS20



Innovation 0.04

Jobs 0.09

Land Use 0.14

Cost 0.18

Air Quality 0.25

GHG Es. 0.30

GHG Es. Cost Air Quality Innovation Jobs Land Use

additional cost / yr

YEA

RS20


SO, HOW DOES NUCLEAR FARE?

Nuclear Biofuel+CCS DNG NG Coal+CCS Solar Biofuel+Coal (CF) Wind Farm BiofuelSolar Farm Coal Dist. Wind Green Grid NG+CCS Fuel Cells NG+Coal (CF) Sm. Hydro Reg. Grid

YEA

RS20


OTHER RESULTS▸ Positive evaluations from users:

▸ Significant increases in learning about energy transitions

▸ High self-reported ease-of-use (of decision-support tools)

▸ High overall self-reported satisfaction with process

▸ High self-reported comfort with final decisions

▸ A paired-down version of this decision-support platform is on display in the NAS’s Koshland Science Museum in Washington, DC.

▸ https://koshland-science-museum.org/sites/all/exhibits/mitigationsim/index.html

YEA

RS20


SELECTED PAPERSShi, J., V. H. M. Visschers, M. Siegrist, and J. Arvai. 2016. Knowledge as a driver of public perceptions about climate change reassessed. Nature Climate Change 6:759-762.

Bessette, D. L., V. Campbell-Arvai, and J. Arvai. 2016. Expanding the Reach of Participatory Risk Management: Testing an Online Decision-Aiding Framework for Informing Internally Consistent Choices. Risk Analysis 36:992-1005.Kenney, L., D. Bessette, and J. Arvai. 2015. Improving decisions about energy strategies in developing communities: A case study from Canada’s north. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 58:855-873.Kenney, L., J. Arvai, M. Vardhan, and D. Catacutan. 2015. Bringing stakeholder values into climate risk management programs: Decision aiding for REDD in Vietnam. Society and Natural Resources 28:261-279.Bessette, D., J. Arvai, and V. Campbell-Arvai. 2014. Decision support framework for developing regional energy strategies. Environmental Science & Technology 48:1401–1408.Arvai, J. 2014. An appeal for smarter decisions. Policy Options 35:40-43.

Arvai, J., R. Gregory, D. Bessette, and V. Campbell-Arvai. 2012. Decision support for the development of energy strategies. Issues in Science and Technology 28:43-52.

YEA

RS20


THANKS AND CONTACT INFO.

Dr. Joe Árvai Director, Erb Institute for Global Sustainable Enterprise

Max McGraw Professor of Sustainable Enterprise

School of Natural Resources & Environment, and Ross School of Business

University of Michigan

E [email protected] • Tel +1 734 647 3891 www erb.umich.edu • Twitter @DecisionLab

Documents

when asked to make an informed choice, do people prefer nuclear