Moderators: Stephen Connors, MIT

Mariano Bauer, Instituto Mexicano del Petróleo
Discussion: All Participants

Presentation by Mr. Stephen Connors

Mr. Stephen Connors opened the final "Bringing It All Together" session with a discussion of "Multi-Attribute Tradeoff Analysis," a technique developed at MIT to carry out complex research projects intended for diverse stakeholder audiences. Built around the early involvement of diverse stakeholders in the decision-making process, the aim is both to educate decision-makers and to ensure that results reflect the primary concerns of the various stakeholders.

He noted that most large infrastructure-related projects can be characterized as a combination of (1) complex problems, (2) dispersed solutions (many jurisdictions make it tough to communicate to decision makers), and (3) finite resources (time, money, people). The hazard of decision-making with inadequate input is illustrated by James Thurber's comment, "The conclusion you jump to may be your own."

He discussed the importance of helping stakeholders to understand and make better decisions, representing this "knowledge infrastructure" as a learning curve (Figure 6-1). At the low end is "problem existence" ("pollution is bad"). Next is "problem definition" ("the following pollutants are the primary sources of health problems and other impacts"). "Solution specification" looks for the most cost-effective and feasible ways to reduce those emissions, and, finally, "solution implementation" involves putting those solutions in place and monitoring the results. (These steps roughly map to the data, information, knowledge, and wisdom indices on the learning curve's vertical axis.) Unfortunately, decisions are often made in politically-charged venues focused on near-term outcomes, and are usually made prior to a consensus definition of the problem, let alone solution. The resulting scenario is shown in Figure 6-2, "Jumping to conclusions: jumping to solutions". "Wisdom," Mr. Connors said, is knowing the limits of your knowledge, adding that this is where issues related to uncertainty come in. The better one can define the problem, the easier it is to identify solutions. Outreach can get folded in. However, he said, the political dynamic often results in our "wallowing around the low end of the learning curve."

Figure 6-1. The Knowledge Infrastructure Learning Curve.

Figure 6-2.The political dynamic: jumping to conclusions; jumping to solutions.

The Multi-Attribute Tradeoff Analysis approach is designed to consider thousands of scenarios, tracking their relative performance against a broad number of attributes. Using computer models and visual techniques, stakeholders are shown how various approaches succeed or don't succeed in protecting city inhabitants at reasonable cost. These analyses are typically conducted over a number of years in order to explore a variety of alternatives, to adequately inform decision-makers, and to allow researchers to make recommendations on which refined strategies to evaluate next. The process is based on an acknowledgment that diverse stakeholdersindustry, government, and environmental interests, among othershave distinct criteria, but that each can agree on the desirability of the "cheap/clean corner" when the economic and environmental performance of numerous strategies is displayed on scatter plots (Figure 6-3). Used in this fashion, the tradeoff analysis fosters brainstorming, which in turn entrains diverse policy makers in the decision-making process and helps to identify consensus strategies.

Figure 6-3. Generic example of scatterplot showing cost-effectiveness vs. environmental performance of control strategies

To illustrate the tradeoff approach, Mr. Connors showed a data set from an electricity planning exercise conducted from 1988 to 1996 with a large group of New England stakeholders. Using strategies derived from brainstorming sessions with the stakeholder audience, Mr. Connors illustrated cost vs. SO_X emissions for a large number of strategies, over a range of assumptions. He demonstrated how these strategies focus progressively on cheap/clean strategies for each successive variable:

Starting with the cost/SO_X emissions curve, he selected all the strategies that were in the cheap/clean corner, then examined these using the second variable. By continued selection of clean/cheap strategies for a series of variables, a narrower set of robust cheap and clean strategies was identified. Mr. Connors added that, pedagogically, the tradeoff approach was useful in identifying dirty and costly strategies as well. Knowing what not to do is as important as knowing what to do, particularly if the outcome of the decision-making process is subject to many influencing parties.

For the purpose of the "Bringing It All Together" discussion, Mr. Connors suggested that participants think about what pieces of the "knowledge infrastructure learning curve" were in place, and which needed development or strengthening. He spoke of these pieces as "links" in the knowledge chain. Links include data, emissions inventories and models; institutions and people; and outreach to decision makers, the media, and the public at large. As with any "chain," the most important links are those that are missing or weak.

Other specific topics for the discussion part of the session included (1) integration of policies, (2) communication/ knowledge dissemination, (3) stakeholders, and (4) a 6-month plan.

Presentation by Professor Mariano Bauer

Professor Mariano Bauer began his talk with an anecdote about a student taking a biology exam. The student has only studied worms and is presented with a question about elephants. "Well," he says, "let's begin by describing the elephant's tail. It's long and at the end narrows down, like a worm." From there the student goes on to share all he knows about worms. The point is that we tend to discuss what we know, but that problems usually occur in new, less understood terrain.

Prof. Bauer said that the Mexico City Project is aimed not only at educating Mexican decision makers, but also various US sectorsacademic, private and publicas to how pollution problems differ across political and geographic strata. Environmental problems are linked to developmental problems. Prof. Bauer explained that a country can have quick or slow development, but that quick development may allowonce the development has taken placethe time and the money to address environmental issues.

Prof. Bauer discussed available technologies/strategies in terms of "hard" (e.g. new internal combustion vehicles and fuels, improved mass transit) and "soft" (urban planning, demand management, marketing of lifestyle changes). One aspect to be taken into account for an integrated assessment is the "global village" effect. He said that developing countries currently are pursuing lifestyle changes that mimic developed countries, largely spurred on by the media. For instance, the US popularity of minivans is spreading to Mexico, despite concerns regarding fuel economy.

In the U.S., Prof. Bauer stated, more than 80% of all driving goes no further than ten miles from home. Small, high-efficiency cars could achieve significant gains. Prof. Bauer argued that consumer choices were influenced by the information environment, dominated by the mass media. Lifestyles of industrialized societies are emulated elsewhere. He also believes that fashion is more powerful than reasoned argument (for instance, when people spend a great deal more for a name brand when the quality is no different). Prof. Bauer talked about "A question of image"could the auto industry not promote very small but fancy cars?

Prof. Bauer said that something is missing from the "think tank" approach, specifically the need to convey the message using mass media. This needs to go beyond marketing people, as any program conveys many visual messages beyond what the content is about. A 1995 World Energy Congress round table on transport and the environment had representatives of academia, oil and auto industries, and international bodies, but no mass media. He concluded by saying that instead of the media being a barrier, we should try to bring them in as part of the solution.

Discussion Summary

Some participants said more data were needed, others identified problems with existing data. Some said the problem wasn't the data but the decision-making process. Most agreed that an integrated assessment should be a parallel rather than a serial process, and that low-cost, politically feasible alternatives can provide early improvements while other strategies were being explored.

There was wide agreement on the need to better understand health issues, and explore methods to better integrate science and social opinion in formulating policies.

Important links were highlighted, including the link between air pollution and global warming, and developed and developing countries. For the latter, an example was provided of developed countries exporting older (less efficient, more polluting) technologies to developing countries, which then trigger trade sanctions against those countries. Also, cost effectiveness as an evaluation metric was cited as an important link between different fields that don't necessarily communicate in the same language. Evaluating the consequences of policy, including getting feedback from people whom policies affect, was considered important in terms of linking actions to outcomes.

Discussing the need to integrate different problems raised many other questions of how to make necessary linkages. For instance, better mass transit and improved transportation planning are critical to air pollution and also to solving problems of congestion and mobility. Some participants identified the need to give the environmental sector more influence over the transportation, construction, and development sectors. The role of industry, how to promote clean technology, and the potential to redirect investments were raised as considerations.

The role of the media was also cited by a number of people as an important factor in being able to implement effective policies. Similarly, public education was generally agreed to be a necessary element of the project.

There was some discussion about the potential political and educational uses of constructing a scenario of what happens if we do nothing. One suggestion was to oversimplify and provoke. This could be accomplished similarly to what the Dutch did, constructing a future environmental scenario if current trends continue for 25 years. Political tools could also be built around health information, for instance an economic assessment of total health costs of air pollution.

Politics was also discussed with regard to legislation, standard setting, and enforcement. The political environment could perhaps also be changed by employing media skills or networking. We need to make it politically feasible for the legislators and policy makers to do the right thing.

A critical factor is to define an audience for ourselves. How to reach decision makers and build credibility were discussed. There are different policy makers we need to reach and to educate, particularly the Mayor of the city and the Governor of the state of Mexico. But there are also many small actors; local authorities don't have time or capability, and we can help answer questions before they jump to conclusions.

Some people commented on developing the human resources to carry out the work. We need to increase the number of people with air pollution expertise, as well as the general level of knowledge of air pollution. Finally, the desire for more meetings like this one was expressed.