Upload
sydnie-meadowcroft
View
216
Download
2
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1Department of Engineering and Public Policy
Carnegie Mellon University
Risk Analysis and Communication: What can we learn from research?
M. Granger MorganHead, Department of Engineering and Public PolicyCarnegie Mellon UniversityPittsburgh PA 15213 USAtel: 412-268-2672e-mail: [email protected]
2Department of Engineering and Public Policy
Carnegie Mellon University
First, Two Slides on Carnegie Mellon's Department of
Engineering and Public Policyhttp://www.epp.cmu.edu
A department in the Engineering college at Carnegie Mellon University.
Faculty: Total of 41. Include true 50:50 joint appointments with all five engineering departments as well as joint appointments with four different social science units in three other colleges.
Undergraduate double major degrees with traditional departments (574 BS graduates to date).
Graduate program is a research-oriented Ph.D. focused on problem in which the technical details really matter (current enrollment 45, 119 Ph.D. graduates to date).
3Department of Engineering and Public Policy
Carnegie Mellon University
Research Four major areas:
1. energy and environment.2. risk analysis and communication.3. telecommunication and information policy.4. technology policy.
In the context of these four areas, we also work on issues in technology and development (China and India) and on issues in dual-use technology, arms control, and defense policy.
EPP currently has several large collaborative group efforts:• Center for Integrated Study of the Human Dimensions of Global Change.• The Electricity Industry Center.• Green Design Initiative.• Center for Energy and Environmental Systems.• Center for the Study and Improvement of Regulation.• Brownfields Center.• IT and telecommunications policy.• Risk analysis, ranking, communication.
4Department of Engineering and Public Policy
Carnegie Mellon University
Today I will talk about:• What is risk?
• Basic ideas in risk analysis.
• A few details on the characterization and treatment of uncertainty.
• Basic ideas in risk management.
• Basic ideas in risk communication.
I've also included some slides which I will not show which summarize a few results from four different recent research projects which I'd be happy to discuss individually.
• Some recent topics of research.
5Department of Engineering and Public Policy
Carnegie Mellon University
Risk
risk - n. 1. The exposure to the chance of injury or loss; a hazard or dangerous chance: he decided to take the risk.
Note:• negative outcome;• uncertain;• not just the probability of loss.
My dictionary defines risk as follows:
While this looks relatively simple, in the real world, things get more complicated…
6Department of Engineering and Public Policy
Carnegie Mellon University
Let's perform a little thought experiment
Suppose I have a new product.
I've done careful market research and know:
I could sell Q devices at a price P, for total revenues QP.
I'd make a profit R.
BUT, the product will have a net impact on national mortality of D excess deaths/year.
When would I be justified in introducing this product?
7Department of Engineering and Public Policy
Carnegie Mellon University
Some of the things that may matter...- A few people bear the risks and many get the benefits.
- The product is frivolous.
- The deaths do not occur immediately.
- I can identify the individuals before/after the deaths.
- The deaths all occur at once/are spread out.
- The people are socially related.
- D = N-M where N is deaths caused and M is deaths prevented.
- The effects are uncertain, <P(n)> = N.
- In addition to mortality, there is morbidity; environmental impact; etc.
In short, risk is a "multi-attribute concept…
8Department of Engineering and Public Policy
Carnegie Mellon University
Risks can be reliably sortedin terms of such factors...
Source: Slovic et al., in Readings in Risk, 1980.
QuickTime™ and a TIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor are needed to see this picture.
QuickTime™ and a TIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor are needed to see this picture.
9Department of Engineering and Public Policy
Carnegie Mellon University
A useful framework forthinking about risk
Exposure processes
Effects processes
Perception processes
Evaluation processes
benefits and costs
human activity
nature
Objects and systems exposed to possibility of change
Changes that occur
Perceived changes
10Department of Engineering and Public Policy
Carnegie Mellon University
A specific example
Transport, diffusion, oxidation
and deposition
Effects processes
Perception processes
Evaluation processes
benefits and costs
coal-fired power plant
natural air pollutants
Material in atmos. Plants and people exposed
Sunsets get redder; crops grown in sulfate poor soil increase yield; people develop respiratory difficulties.
Perceived changes
weather culture, political climate
11Department of Engineering and Public Policy
Carnegie Mellon University
The role of values
Exposure processes
Effects processes
Perception processes
Evaluation processes
benefits and costs
human activity
nature
Objects and systems exposed to possibility of change
Changes that occur
Perceived changes
Value-free analysis possible in principle.
Value-free analysis inherently not possible.
12Department of Engineering and Public Policy
Carnegie Mellon University
Today I will talk about:
• What is risk?
• Basic ideas in risk analysis
• A few details on the characterization and treatment of uncertainty.
• Basic ideas in risk management.
• Basic ideas in risk communication.
• Some recent topics of research.
13Department of Engineering and Public Policy
Carnegie Mellon University
A highly simplified taxonomy of tools for risk assessment
risks from continuousexposure
risks from discreteevents failure mode
and effects analysis
fault treeanalysis
transport and dispersion models
dose-response models
SO2 SO4
wet and dry deposition
14Department of Engineering and Public Policy
Carnegie Mellon University
Transport and Dispersion Models
QuickTime™ and a TIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor are needed to see this picture.
Source: Morgan and McMichael, Policy Sciences, 1981.
15Department of Engineering and Public Policy
Carnegie Mellon University
Dose Response Functions
Resp
onse
(e.g
. ca
nce
r in
cidence
)
Dose (e.g. concentration times time)
A B
threshold
Resp
onse
(e.g
. ca
nce
r in
cidence
)
Dose (e.g. concentration times time)
A B
Linear, without (A) and with (B) threshold.
Non-linear, without (A) and with (B) threshold.
16Department of Engineering and Public Policy
Carnegie Mellon University
Complications
Re
spo
nse
(e
.g. c
an
cer
inci
de
nce
)
Dose (e.g. concentration times time)
timeco
nce
ntr
ati
on
time
conce
ntr
ati
on
Healthy
Dead
C x t = D
C x t = D
Variable sensitivity amongindividuals.
Response depends in a time-dynamic way on exposure (i.e., no one-to-one mapping between cumulative exposure and response).
17Department of Engineering and Public Policy
Carnegie Mellon University
Examples of real dose-response functions
QuickTime™ and a TIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor are needed to see this picture.
QuickTime™ and a TIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor are needed to see this picture.
Source: Morgan, IEEE Spectrum, 1981.
18Department of Engineering and Public Policy
Carnegie Mellon University
We could go through a similardiscussion for discrete events
Event trees:
Fault trees:
Source: Rasmussen, Ann. Rev. of Energy, 1981.
QuickTime™ and a TIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor are needed to see this picture.
QuickTime™ and a TIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor are needed to see this picture.
19Department of Engineering and Public Policy
Carnegie Mellon University
Today I will talk about:
• What is risk?
• Basic ideas in risk analysis
• A few details on the characterization and treatment of uncertainty.
M. Granger Morgan, Max Henrion, with a chapter by Mitchell Small, Uncertainty: A guide to dealing with uncertainty in quantitative risk and policy analysis, 332pp., Cambridge University Press, New York, 1990. (Paperback edition 1992. Latest printing (with revised Chapter 10) 1998.)
• Basic ideas in risk management.
• Basic ideas in risk communication.
• Some recent topics of research.
20Department of Engineering and Public Policy
Carnegie Mellon University
Probability
Probability is the basic language of uncertainty.
I will adopt a personalistic view of probability (sometimes also called a subjectivist or Bayesian view).
In this view, probability is a statement of the degree of belief that a person has that a specified event will occur given all the relevant information currently known by that person.
P(X|i) where:
X is the uncertain event
i is the person's state of information.
21Department of Engineering and Public Policy
Carnegie Mellon University
The clairvoyant test
Even if we take a personalist view of probability, the event or quantity of interest must be well specified for a probability, or a probability distribution, to be meaningful.
"The retail price of gasoline in 2008" does not pass this test. A clairvoyant would need to know things such as:
• Where will the gas be purchased?
• At what time of year?
• What octane?
22Department of Engineering and Public Policy
Carnegie Mellon University
Does a subjectivist view mean your probability can be arbitrary?
NO, because if they are legitimate probabilities, they must
• conform with the axioms of probability
• be consistent with available empirical data.
Lots of people ask, why deal with probability? Why not just use subjective words such as "likely" and "unlikely" to describe uncertainties? There are very good reasons not to do this.
23Department of Engineering and Public Policy
Carnegie Mellon University
The risks of using qualitative uncertainty language
Qualitative uncertainty language is inadequate because:
- the same words can mean very different things to different people.
- the same words can mean very different things to the same person in different contexts.
- important differences in experts' judgments about mechanisms (functional relationships), and about how well key coefficients are known, can be easily masked in qualitative discussions.
24Department of Engineering and Public Policy
Carnegie Mellon University
Mapping words to
probabilities
Probability that subjects associated with the qualitative description
0.00.20.40.60.81.0
Almost certain
Probable
Likely
Good chance
Possible
Tossup
Unlikely
Improbable
Doubtful
Almost impossible
range of individual upper bound estimates
range of individual lower bound estimates
range from upper to lower median estimate
Qua
lita
tive
des
crip
tion
of
unce
rtai
nty
used
Figure adapted from Wallsten et al., 1986.
This figure shows the range of probabilities that people are asked to assign probabilities to words, absent any specific context.
25Department of Engineering and Public Policy
Carnegie Mellon University
Ex Com of EPA SAB
SAB members:
Key:
likely
someth
ing betw
een
likely
and not l
ikely
not lik
ely
Other meeting participants:
1.0
0.9
0.7
0.5
0.3
0.1
0.0
5
0.0
1
0.0
01
0.0
00
1
0.0
00
01
0.0
00
00
1
Probability that the material is a human carcinogen
The minimum probability associated with the word "likely" spanned four orders of magnitude.The maximum probability associated with the word "not likely" spanned more than five orders of magnitude. There was an overlap of the probability associated with the word "likely" and that associated with the word "unlikely"!
Figure from Morgan, HERA, 1998.
26Department of Engineering and Public Policy
Carnegie Mellon University
The bottom lineWithout at least some quantification, qualitative descriptions of uncertainty convey little, if any, useful information.
Here are two examples from the climate assessment community:
Schneider and Moss have worked to get a better treatment of uncertainty incorporated into the past and current round of IPCC. Progress is uneven, but awareness is growing. Individual investigators are pushing the process along.
The U.S. National Assessment Synthesis Team gave quantitative definitions to five probability words and tried to use them consistently throughout their overview report.
27Department of Engineering and Public Policy
Carnegie Mellon University
In doing risk analysis, we must consider two quite different kinds of uncertainty
1. Situations in which we know the relevant variables and the functional relationships among them, but we no not know the values of key coefficients (e.g., the "climate sensitivity").
2. Situations in which we are not sure what all the relevant variables are, or the functional relationships among them (e.g., will rising energy prices induce more technical innovation?).
Both are challenging, but the first is much more easily addressed than the second.
28Department of Engineering and Public Policy
Carnegie Mellon University
Uncertainty about quantities
From Morgan and Henrion, Uncertainty, Cambridge, 1990/99.
29Department of Engineering and Public Policy
Carnegie Mellon University
One should…
…use available data, and well-established physical and statistical theory, to describe uncertainty whenever either or both are available.
However, often the available data and theory are not exactly relevant to the problem at hand, or they are not sufficiently complete to support the full objective construction of a probability distribution.
In such cases, one may have to rely on expert judgment. This brings us to the problem of how to "elicit" expert judgment.
30Department of Engineering and Public Policy
Carnegie Mellon University
Expert elicitation takes time and care
Eliciting subjective probabilistic judgments requires careful preparation and execution.
Developing and testing an appropriate interview protocol typically takes several months. Each interview is likely to require several hours.
When addressing complex, scientifically subtle questions of the sorts involved with most problems in climate change, there are no satisfactory short cuts. Attempts to simplify and speed up the process almost always lead to shoddy results.
The next eight slides (which I will skip because time is short) talk about the important issues of overconfidence and the impacts of "cognitive heuristics." These are critically important topics for anyone who actually plans to do expert elicitation. <Skip to 37.>
31Department of Engineering and Public Policy
Carnegie Mellon University
Over Confidence
Source: Morgan and Henrion, 1990/99.
Extra slide - will not show
32Department of Engineering and Public Policy
Carnegie Mellon University
Over Confidence
Source: Morgan and Henrion, 1990/99.
Extra slide - will not show
33Department of Engineering and Public Policy
Carnegie Mellon University
Cognitive heuristics
When ordinary people or experts make judgments about uncertain events, such as numbers of deaths from chance events, they use simple mental rules of thumb called "cognitive heuristics."
In many day-to-day circumstances, these serve us very well, but in some instances they can lead to bias - such as over confidence - in the judgments we make.
This can be a problem for experts too.
The three slides that follow illustrate three key heuristics: "availability," "anchoring and adjustment," and "representativeness."
Extra slide - will not show
34Department of Engineering and Public Policy
Carnegie Mellon University
Cognitive bias
from Lichtenstein et al., 1978.
Availability: probability judgment is driven by ease with which people can think of previous occurrences of the event or can imagine such occurrences.
Extra slide - will not show
35Department of Engineering and Public Policy
Carnegie Mellon University
Cognitive bias…(Cont.)
Anchoring and adjustment: probability judgment is frequently driven by the starting point which becomes an "anchor."
from Lichtenstein et al., 1978.
Extra slide - will not show
36Department of Engineering and Public Policy
Carnegie Mellon University
Cognitive bias…(Cont.)
I flip a fair coin 8 times. Which of the following two outcomes is more likely?
Outcome 1: T, T, T, T, H, H, H, H
Outcome 2: T, H, T, H, H, T, H, T
Of course, the two specific sequences are equally likely...but the second seems more likely because it looks more representative of the underlying random process.
Representativeness: people judge the likelihood that an object belongs to a particular class in terms of how much it resembles that class.
Extra slide - will not show
37Department of Engineering and Public Policy
Carnegie Mellon University
Expert elicitation…(Cont.)In all our elicitation studies, we've focused on creating a process that allows the experts to provide their carefully considered judgment, supported by all the resources they may care to use. Thus, we have:
- Prepared a background review of the relevant literatures.
- Carefully iterated the questions with selected experts and run pilot studies with younger (Post-doc) experts to distil and refine the questions.
- Conducted interviews in experts' offices with full resources at hand.
- Provide ample opportunity for subsequent review and revision of the judgments provided.
All of these efforts have involved the development of new question formats that fit the issues at hand.
Extra slide - will not show
38Department of Engineering and Public Policy
Carnegie Mellon University
Expert elicitation …(Cont.)Over the past two decades, my colleagues and I have developed and performed a number of substantively detailed expert elicitations. These have been designed to obtain experts’ considered judgments. Examples include work on:
Health effects of air pollution from coal-fired power plants.
• M. Granger Morgan, Samuel C. Morris, Alan K. Meier and Debra L. Shenk, "A Probabilistic Methodology for Estimating Air Pollution Health Effects from Coal-Fired Power Plants," Energy Systems and Policy, 2, 287-310, 1978.
• M. Granger Morgan, Samuel C. Morris, William R. Rish and Alan K. Meier, "Sulfur Control in Coal-Fired Power Plants: A Probabilistic Approach to Policy Analysis," Journal of the Air Pollution Control Association, 28, 993-997, 1978.
• M. Granger Morgan, Samuel C. Morris, Max Henrion, Deborah A.L. Amaral and William R. Rish, "Technical Uncertainty in Quantitative Policy Analysis: A Sulfur Air Pollution Example," Risk Analysis, 4, 201-216, 1984 September.
• M. Granger Morgan, Samuel C. Morris, Max Henrion and Deborah A. L. Amaral, "Uncertainty in Environmental Risk Assessment: A case study involving sulfur transport and health effects," Environmental Science & Technology, 19, 662-667, 1985 August.
39Department of Engineering and Public Policy
Carnegie Mellon University
Expert elicitation…(Cont.)
• M. Granger Morgan and David Keith, "Subjective Judgments by Climate Experts," Environmental Science & Technology, 29(10), 468-476, October 1995.
• Elizabeth A. Casman, M. Granger Morgan and Hadi Dowlatabadi, “Mixed Levels of Uncertainty in Complex Policy Models,” Risk Analysis, 19(1), 33-42, 1999.
• M. Granger Morgan, Louis F. Pitelka and Elena Shevliakova, "Elicitation of Expert Judgments of Climate Change Impacts on Forest Ecosystems," Climatic Change, 49, 279-307, 2001.
• Anand B. Rao, Edward S. Rubin and M. Granger Morgan, "Evaluation of Potential Cost Reductions from Improved CO2 Capture Systems,"Proceedings of the 2nd National Conference on Carbon Sequestration, Alexandria, VA, May 5-8, 2003.
Climate science, climate impacts and mitigation technology:
• M. Granger Morgan, "The Neglected Art of Bounding Analysis," Environmental Science & Technology, 35, 162A-164A, April 1, 2001.
• Minh Ha-Duong, Elizabeth A. Casman, and M. Granger Morgan, "Bounding Poorly Characterized Risks: A lung cancer example," Risk Analysis, in press.
Bounding uncertain health risks:
40Department of Engineering and Public Policy
Carnegie Mellon University
Warming for 2x[CO2]
1
234
56789
10111213141516
Temperature response given 2x[CO ] (K)
0-5-10 5 10 15 20
4 with "surprise"
exp
ert
2
with state change
0-5-10 5 10 15 20
2Source: Morgan and Keith, ES&T, 1995. …and, lest you conclude that most of these
experts are in basic agreement…
41Department of Engineering and Public Policy
Carnegie Mellon University
Pole to equator temperature gradient for
2x[CO2]122
56789
10111213141516
Meridinal temperature gradient given 2x[CO ] (K)
3530 40
30 35 40
4
ex
pe
rt
na
na
na
3
w/climate state change
2
Source: Morgan and Keith, ES&T, 1995.
42Department of Engineering and Public Policy
Carnegie Mellon University
Biomass in Northern Forestsw/ 2xCO2 climate change
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Expe
rt
9
10
11
A. B.
Change in soil carbon in minimally disturbed Northern Forests between 45°N and 65°N under specified 2x[CO 2] climate change.
0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.40.4
Change in standing biomass in minimally disturbed Northern Forests between 45°N and 65°N under specified 2x[CO2] climate change.
North America
Eurasia
North America
Eurasia
Eurasia
North America
"trivial"
w/permafrostw/o permafrost
North America
Eurasia
North America and Eurasia E of the Urals
Europe west of the Urals
0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.40.40.2
North America
Eurasia
North America
Eurasia
w/permafrostw/o permafrost
North America and Eurasia E of the Urals
Europe west of the Urals
North America
Eurasia
Change in standing biomass Change in soil carbon
Source: Morgan et al., Climatic Change, 2001.
43Department of Engineering and Public Policy
Carnegie Mellon University
Biomass in Tropical Forests w/ 2xCO2 climate change
A. B.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Expert
9
10
11
0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.40.4
Change in standing biomass in minimally disturbed Tropical Forests between 20°N and 20°S under specified 2x[CO2] climate change.
0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.40.4
Change in soil carbon in minimally disturbed Tropical Forests between 20°N and 20°S under specified 2x[CO2] climate change.
Change in standing biomass Change in soil carbon
Source: Morgan et al., Climatic Change, 2001.
44Department of Engineering and Public Policy
Carnegie Mellon University
Uncertainty about model formOften uncertainty about model form is as or more important than uncertainty about values of coefficients. Until recently there had been little practical progress in dealing with such uncertainty, but now there are several good examples:
• John Evans and his colleagues at the Harvard School of Public Health (Evans et al., 1994).
• Alan Cornell and others in the seismic risk (Budnitz et al., 1995).
• Hadi Dowlatabadi and colleagues at Carnegie Mellon in Integrated Assessment of Climate Change (ICAM) (Morgan and Dowlatabadi, 1996).
45Department of Engineering and Public Policy
Carnegie Mellon University
Energy & Emissions
Atmospheric Composition &
Climate
Demographics & Economics
INTERVENTION
Impacts of Climate Change
StructureInputs Outputs
To run the model: 1 - Double click on INPUTS to set up the scenario inputs; 2 - Double click on STRUCTURE to set up the model; 3 - Double click on OUTPUTS and evaluate the indicators.
Regional ²T
GHG Models
Aerosol Model
ForcingChange in Long Wave
Forcing
Change in Short Wave
Forcing
Elicited Climate Model
RITS Conc
ICAMIntegrated Climate Assessment Model
See for example:Hadi Dowlatabadi and M. Granger Morgan, "A Model Framework for Integrated Studies of the Climate Problem," Energy Policy, 21(3), 209-221, March 1993.andM. Granger Morgan and Hadi Dowlatabadi, "Learning from Integrated Assessment of Climate Change," Climatic Change, 34, 337-368, 1996.
A very large hierarchicallyorganized stochasticsimulation model builtin Analytica®.
46Department of Engineering and Public Policy
Carnegie Mellon University
ICAM deals with...
…both of the types of uncertainty I've talked about:
1. It deals with uncertain coefficients by assigning PDFs
to them and then performing stochastic simulation to
propagate the uncertainty through the model.
2. It deals with uncertainty about model functional form
(e.g., will rising energy prices induce more technical
innovation?) by introducing multiple alternative
models which can be chosen by throwing "switches."
47Department of Engineering and Public Policy
Carnegie Mellon University
ICAMThere is not enough time to present any details from our work with the ICAM integrated assessment model. Here are a few conclusions from that work:
• Different sets of plausible model assumptions give dramatically different results.
• No policy we have looked at is dominant over the wide range of plausible futures we’ve examined.
• The regional differences in outcomes are so vast that few if any policies would pass muster globally for similar decision rules.
• Different metrics of aggregate outcomes (e.g., $s versus hours of labor) skew the results to reflect the OECD or developing regional issues respectively.
48Department of Engineering and Public Policy
Carnegie Mellon University
These findings lead us......to switch from trying to project and examine the future, to using the modeling framework as a test-bed to evaluate the relative robustness, across a wide range of plausible model futures, of alternative strategies that regional actors in the model might adopt.
We populated the model's regions with simple decision agents and asked, which behavioral strategies are robust in the face of uncertain futures, which get us in trouble.
Thus, for example, it turns out that tracking and responding to atmospheric concentration is more likely to lead regional policy makers in the model to stable strategies than tracking and responding to emissions.
49Department of Engineering and Public Policy
Carnegie Mellon University
Our conclusionPrediction and policy optimization are pretty silly analytical objectives for much assessment and analysis related to the climate problem.
It makes much more sense to:
• Acknowledge that describing and bounding a range of futures may often be the best we can do.
• Recognize that climate is not the only thing that is changing, and address the problem in that context.
• Focus on developing adaptive strategies and evaluating their likely robustness in the face of a range of possible climate, social, economic and ecological futures.
50Department of Engineering and Public Policy
Carnegie Mellon University
Today I will talk about:
• What is risk?
• Basic ideas in risk analysis
• A few details on the characterization and treatment of uncertainty.
• Basic ideas in risk management.
• Basic ideas in risk communication.
• Some recent topics of research.
51Department of Engineering and Public Policy
Carnegie Mellon University
Strategies for managing risk
Exposure processes
Effects processes
Perception processes
Evaluation processes
benefits and costs
human activity
nature
Objects and systems exposed to possibility of change
Changes that occur
Perceived changes
Modify the human activity
Modify the effects process
Modify the exposure process
Modify human perceptions
Modify human valuations
Mitigate or compensate
52Department of Engineering and Public Policy
Carnegie Mellon University
Examples
Modify naturalor humanenvironment
Live close towork and walk.Build rapidtransit systems.
Eliminatepoverty,inequality,anger, mentalillness, and soon.
Risk
Risk of vehicleoccupantinjury in autoaccident.
Risk of gettingshot bysomeone withhandgun.
Avoid ormodifyexposureprocesses
Change speedlimits.Get tough withDUIs.Train people todrivedefensively.
Ban handguns.Impose harshpenalties for usein crimes.Stay out of highcrime areas.
Avoid ormodify effectsprocesses
Wear seat belts.Install pro-tective systems.
Wear protectivebulletproofclothing.Duck.
Mitigate orcompensatefor effects
Carry autoinsurance.Operate goodemergencymedical system.Sue otherdriver.
Carry healthinsurance.Operate goodemergencymedical system.Sue person whoshot you.
No strategy is best everywhere. Depending on context, different strategies do best in different settings.
53Department of Engineering and Public Policy
Carnegie Mellon University
Strategies for managing risk
• Tort and other common law (e.g., negligence, liability, nuisance, trespass).
• Insurance (private, public or hybrid).
• Voluntary standard setting organizations (UL, ASTM, etc.).
• Individual and collective corporate initiatives (CMA - Responsible Care).
• Information-based strategies (e.g, TRI, green labels).
• Mandatory government standards and other regulations (performance standards, design standards).
• Market-based solutions (emissions taxes, tradable permits).
54Department of Engineering and Public Policy
Carnegie Mellon University
Today I will talk about:
• What is risk?
• Basic ideas in risk analysis
• A few details on the characterization and treatment of uncertainty.
• Basic ideas in risk management.
• Basic ideas in risk communication.M. Granger Morgan, Baruch Fischhoff, Ann Bostrom and Cynthia Atman, Risk Communication: A mental models approach, 351pp., Cambridge University Press, New York, 2002.
• Some recent topics of research.
55Department of Engineering and Public Policy
Carnegie Mellon University
The traditional approach……to risk communication involves two steps:
1. Ask an expert what people should be told.
2. Get a "communications expert" to package it.
And, if you are being really fancy:
3. Run some tests to see how people like it.
However, if you think about it for a few minutes, this approach ignores two critical issues:
• What the people receiving the message already "know" about the topic.
• What they need to know to make the decisions they face.
56Department of Engineering and Public Policy
Carnegie Mellon University
Finding out what people know…
…is not simple! If I give people a questionnaire, I have to put information in my questions.
People are smart. They will start making inferences based on the information in my questions.
Pretty soon I won't know if their answers reflect what they already knew, or the new ideas they have come up with because of the information I have given them.
I need a better, less intrusive way to learn what they know. The method we have developed to do this is called the mental model interview.
57Department of Engineering and Public Policy
Carnegie Mellon University
Five step process:In work done over the past 15 years at Carnegie Mellon, we have developed a five-step approach to risk communication, based on people's mental models of risk processes:
1. Develop an "influence diagram" to structure expert knowledge.
Number of interviews
Cum
ula
tive
num
ber
of
conce
pts
0
40
80
120
160
1 10 20 30
A
B1
B2 B3S1
S2 S3
S4
2. Conduct an open-ended elicitation of people's beliefs about a hazard, allowing the expression of both accurate and inaccurate concepts. Map the results to the expert influence diagram.
58Department of Engineering and Public Policy
Carnegie Mellon University
Five steps…(Cont.)3. On the basis of results from the open-ended interviews,
develop and administer a closed-form questionnaire to a much larger group in order to determine the prevalence of these beliefs.
4. Develop a draft communication based on both a decision analytic assessment of what people need to know in order to make informed decisions and a psychological assessment of their current beliefs.
5. Iteratively test successive versions of those communications using open-ended, closed-form, and problem-solving instruments, administered before, during, and after the receipt of the message.
In 1994, we applied these methods to study public understanding of climate change. While the results are now getting old, I will show you a few since they are unlikely to have changed much.
59Department of Engineering and Public Policy
Carnegie Mellon University
Example of opening response in interview
Interviewer: "I'd like you to tell me all about the issue of climate change."
Subject: "Climate change. Do you mean global warming?"
Interviewer: "Climate change."
Subject: "OK. Let's see. What do I know. The earth is getting warmer because there are holes in the atmosphere and this is global warming and the greenhouse effect. Um... I really don't know very much about it, but it does seem to be true. The temperatures do seem to be kind of warm in the winters. They do seem to be warmer than in the past.. and.. hmm.. That's all I know about global warming.
60Department of Engineering and Public Policy
Carnegie Mellon University
Another example…
Interviewer: "Tell me all about the issue of climate change."
Subject: "I'm pretty interested in it... The ice caps are melting -- the hole in the ozone layer. They think pollution from cars and aerosol cans are the cause of all that. I think the space shuttle might have something to do with it too, because they always send that up through the earth, to get out in outer space. So I think that would have something to do with it, too."
61Department of Engineering and Public Policy
Carnegie Mellon University
Another example…
Interviewer: "Tell me all about the issue of climate change."
Subject: "Climate change? Like, what about it? Like, as far as the ozone layer and ice caps melting, water level raising, rainforest going down, oxygen going down because of that? All of that kind of stuff?"
Interviewer: "Anything else?"
Subject: "Well, erosion all over the place. Um, topsoils going down into everywhere. Fertilizer poisoning. "Interviewer: "Anything else that comes to mind related to climate change?Subject: "Climate change. Winter's ain't like they used to be. Nothing's as severe. Not as much snow. Nothing like that."
62Department of Engineering and Public Policy
Carnegie Mellon University
Schematic of the approachConduct open- ended interviews of representative lay people.
Develop/refine representations of lay mental models.
Validate representation(s) and prevalence of mental model(s) with closed-form questionnaires.
Structure model of lay values.
Structure decis- ion problems lay people face.
Develop expert model of the risk problem.
Structure risk managment strategy.
Design risk communication (if required).
Evaluate risk communication with open-ended, closed-form and problem solving instruments.
Evaluate risk managment strategy (eg. changes in behavior, etc.).
Other social and economic considerations.
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
5
63Department of Engineering and Public Policy
Carnegie Mellon University
Based on what we have learned…
…in our studies of public understanding of various risks we have produced various public communication materials:
After the initial two-page overview, three two-page spreads concisely summarize the key ideas.
Light-weight "Details Books" in pockets at the back of each of the three sections provide a third level of details.
Part 1: What is climate change?
•Part 1•Part 1•Part 1•Part 1•Part 1•Part 1••Part 1•Part 1•Part 1•Part 1•Part 1•
An initial two-page spread hits the main points and lists common misconceptions
I have brought a few examples for people who are interested.
64Department of Engineering and Public Policy
Carnegie Mellon University
A few conclusions
There is no such thing as an "expert" in public communication who can simply tell you what to do.
An empirical approach is essential.
Before developing a communication one must learn what the public knows and thinks.
The mental models method offers a promising strategy for doing this.
Uncertainty must be quantified.
65Department of Engineering and Public Policy
Carnegie Mellon University
Today I will talk about:
• What is risk?
• Basic ideas in risk analysis
• A few details on the characterization and treatment of uncertainty.
• Basic ideas in risk management.
• Basic ideas in risk communication.
• Some recent topics of research.
66Department of Engineering and Public Policy
Carnegie Mellon University
In the Department of Engineering andPublic Policy at Carnegie Mellon…
…we've had an active program in risk-related research for 30 years. Since time is very short, I've included a few illustrative slides on four recent projects:
• Dealing with mixed and extreme uncertainty.Elizabeth A. Casman, M. Granger Morgan and Hadi Dowlatabadi, “Mixed Levels of Uncertainty in Complex Policy Models,” Risk Analysis, 19(1), 33-42, 1999.
• The use of bounding analysis.Minh Ha-Duong, Elizabeth A. Casman, and M. Granger Morgan, “Bounding Poorly Characterized Risks: A Lung Cancer Example,” Risk Analysis, in press.
• Risk ranking.H. Keith Florig et al. "A Deliberative Method for Ranking Risks (I): Overview and test bed development," Risk Analysis, 21(5), 913-921, 2001 and Kara M. Morgan et al. "A Deliberative Method for Ranking Risks (II): Evaluation of validity and agreement among risk managers," Risk Analysis, 21(5), 923-937, 2001.
• Public perceptions of deep geological disposal of CO2.Claire R. Palmgren, M. Granger Morgan, Wändi Bruine de Bruin, and David W. Keith "Initial Public Perceptions of Deep Geological and Oceanic Disposal of Carbon Dioxide," in review at ES&T.
67Department of Engineering and Public Policy
Carnegie Mellon University
AcknowledgmentsOver the years my work on risk has been greatly assisted by collaborations with many colleagues including:
Elizabeth CasmanMichael DeKayHadi DowlatabadiPaul FischbeckBaruch FischhoffKeith FlorigMax HenrionKaren JenniDavid KeithLester LaveKara MorganLouis PitelkaElena ShevliakovaPatti SteranchakHenry Willis
68Department of Engineering and Public Policy
Carnegie Mellon University
Limited domain of
model validity
Year2075 21002050202520001975
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Me
an
ch
an
ge
in
g
lob
al t
em
pe
ratu
re,°
C
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Me
an
ch
an
ge
in
g
lob
al t
em
pe
ratu
re,°
C
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Me
an
ch
an
ge
in
g
lob
al t
em
pe
ratu
re,°
C
0.00
0.10
Pro
ba
bili
ty o
f a c
ha
ng
e
in
the
clim
ate
sta
te
0.20
0.30
0.00
0.10
Pro
ba
bili
ty o
f a c
ha
ng
e
in
the
clim
ate
sta
te
0.20
0.30
0.00
0.10
Pro
ba
bili
ty o
f a c
ha
ng
e
in
the
clim
ate
sta
te
0.20
0.30
Year2075 21002050202520001975
Year2075 21002050202520001975
Expert 1
Expert 8
Expert 15
Examples of warming estimated via the ICAM model (dark curves) and probability that the associated climate forcing will induce a state change in the climate system (light curves) using the probabilistic judgments of three different climate experts.
Extra slide - will not show
69Department of Engineering and Public Policy
Carnegie Mellon University
Modelswitching
Schematic illustration of the strategy of switching to progressively simpler models as one moves into less well understood regions of the problem phase space, in this case, over time.
Time
period during which one thinks output from detailed model is meaningful
period during which one thinks output from a simple order-of- magnitude model is meaningful
period during which only bounding analysis is meaningful
complete ignorance
0
1
Extra slide - will not show
70Department of Engineering and Public Policy
Carnegie Mellon University
Illustrationof modelswitching
Results of applying the model switch-over strategy to the ICAM demographic model (until about 2050) and an estimate of the upper-bound estimate of global population carrying capacity based on J. S. Cohen.
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0Weight for ICAM model
Weight for Cohen model
2000 2050 2100 2150 2200 2250 2300
20
40
60
0
80
Extra slide - will not show
71Department of Engineering and Public Policy
Carnegie Mellon University
Bounding
When the science is poorly understood, probabilistic risk analysis is routinely used to obtain estimates of health impacts, with results typically reported in the form of a very broad subjective probability density function.
For impacts with multiple causes, such estimates are usually made separately, by different investigators, for each cause of interest.
However, if those separate probabilistic estimates were brought together and summed, the results could sometimes substantially exceed the numbers of cases actually observed.
Extra slide - will not show
72Department of Engineering and Public Policy
Carnegie Mellon University
Bounding analysisIn a commentary in ES&T in April of 2001, I argued that methods of bounding analysis could be used in environmental risk analysis to avoid such problems. For health endpoints with multiple external causes, the available knowledge can be used to constrain estimates of the magnitude of the poorly characterized risks.
If most risks were known with precision, this would be a simple subtraction problem. But health risks from environmental causes often involve high uncertainty. However, in many cases, there is agreement on the general magnitude of the impacts of the best-studied causes. The idea is to use this knowledge to bound the sum of the other less well known risks.
M. Granger Morgan, "The Neglected Art of Bounding Analysis," Viewpoint, Environmental Science & Technology, 35, 162A-164A, April 1, 2001.
Extra slide - will not show
73Department of Engineering and Public Policy
Carnegie Mellon University
To illustrate the method……we have developed an example that harmonizes informed beliefs about the relative contribution made by different causal factors using total current U.S. lung cancer mortality.
The goal of the analysis is to generate an upper bound on the mortality attributed to the group of poorly-characterized factors, derived from information on the group of well-characterized risk factors.
To perform this bounding analysis it is first necessary to apportion lung cancer mortalities among the various known causes, or groups of causes, according to current scientific knowledge and opinion.
Extra slide - will not show
74Department of Engineering and Public Policy
Carnegie Mellon University
Illustration
All lung cancers:
Lung cancers attributable to:
tobacco:
radon:
asbestos:
all others:
Extra slide - will not show
75Department of Engineering and Public Policy
Carnegie Mellon University
In the example…
…I am presenting today, we have developed the needed bounds by reviewing the relevant literatures and making our own judgments.
We are currently running an expert elicitation to seek the carefully informed judgment of a number of lung cancer experts.
Extra slide - will not show
76Department of Engineering and Public Policy
Carnegie Mellon University
We partition…
…the lung cancer deaths into non-intersecting categories of single causative factors and causal factor groupings and constrain the sum of all mortality across those partitions to equal the observed mortality.
In addition to causal categories, we define a "background" category for the lung cancer deaths that would have occurred in the absence of exposure to all carcinogens.
While there is no way to measure this quantity, clearly it exists in principle, and it can be bounded through consideration of lung cancer deaths in groups with low exposures to known carcinogens.
Extra slide - will not show
77Department of Engineering and Public Policy
Carnegie Mellon University
In our illustration…
… the set of possible causes of lung cancer () consists of active, former, and passive smoking (C); domestic exposure to radon (R); occupational exposure to inhaled asbestos (A); and the group of all other environmental risk factors (X).
Note that our analysis deals with annual lung cancer mortality in the U. S. population as a whole and not in subpopulations that experience different exposure histories, display different susceptibilities and have different access to health care.
Since genetic factors play a role in all cancers, we consider them to be a priori, non-manipulable attributes of the overall U.S. population.
Extra slide - will not show
78Department of Engineering and Public Policy
Carnegie Mellon University
Graphically
The basic statistic n, showing only risk factors C, R, and X, for simplicity. N is the totalnumber of lung cancer fatalities. n is the number of fatalities apportioned to each riskfactor or combination of factors. n() is the background number of lung cancer deathsthat would occur absent all the various risk factors. n() = n(CRX) and represents thenumber of cases for which no risk factor can be excluded.
N
n() n(C) n(R) n(CR) n(X) n(XC) n(XR) n()
Extra slide - will not show
79Department of Engineering and Public Policy
Carnegie Mellon University
Smoking
Smoking-Attributable Mortality (SAM), Cancers of the Trachea, Lung and Bronchus,1999 (Source: CDC)
Mortality fromNeoplasms of
Trachea, Lung,and Bronchus
Lung CancerDeaths fromSecondhandSmoking(28)
Active & PassiveSmoking
AttributableFraction
Total deaths 89,337SAM 78,459 1,110Males
percent 87.8% 89.1%Total deaths 62,613
SAM 44,727 1,890Femalespercent 71.4% 74.4%
Total deaths 151,950SAM 123,186 3,000 83.0%
MalesandFemales percent 81.1% 2%
Extra slide - will not show
80Department of Engineering and Public Policy
Carnegie Mellon University
In summary
Based on our review of the literature, we have constructed a set of judgments apportioning lung cancer deaths among these causes which imply the following constraints:
f u (C) = 0.70, f l(C) = 0.95 f u (R) = 0.21, f l(R) = 0.02 f u (A) = 0.05, f l (A) = 0.01 where f u denotes an upper bound on the fraction of lung cancer deaths due to a particular cause and f l the lower bound.
Extra slide - will not show
81Department of Engineering and Public Policy
Carnegie Mellon University
From the bounds……on the proportions of annual lung cancer mortality due to the major lung cancer causes (C, R, and A), information about the magnitude of risk from all other lung cancer causes (X) is
then inferred, using a consistency constraint on the total number of deaths.
Graphically we perform:
R = N - n()i.e. R = 100%
R = 0%
C = 0%
C = N - n()i.e. C = 100%
X = N - n()i.e. X = 100%
X = 0% Pn
Extra slide - will not show
82Department of Engineering and Public Policy
Carnegie Mellon University
Example results
Results of Optimization: Upper and Lower Bounds on Attributable Fractions andRelative Risks of Cancer Risk Factors
C R A XUpper bound on af 95% 21% 5.0% 3.2%Lower bound on af 70% 2% 1.0% 0.0%
Exposure probability 45%(a) 50%*(b) 5%(c) 5%**Upper bound on rr 43.2 1.53 2.05 1.66Lower bound on rr 6.19 1.04 1.20 1.00a. National Center for Health Statistics, 2001.b. NRC, 1999.c. Dept. of Labor, 2002.* The fraction of U. S. homes with radon concentrations at or above 25 Bqm-1.** Our estimate.
Extra slide - will not show
83Department of Engineering and Public Policy
Carnegie Mellon University
Example results…(Cont.)This example calculation assigns between 0% and 3.2% of lung cancer deaths to X, the group of unspecified occupational and environmental pollutants.
Thus, for the group of known and suspected lung carcinogens other than C, A, and R, if one is confident in the bounds assigned to the well understood risk factors, the sum of the effects of the poorly understood factors collectively should account for no more than 3.2% of total lung cancer mortality.
This provides a constraint on estimates of those risks produced by more conventional risk analysis.
Extra slide - will not show
84Department of Engineering and Public Policy
Carnegie Mellon University
Checking diesel estimates
Two national associations of air quality control offices published a projection of the number of cancers due to exposure to diesel exhaust.
They estimated that diesel would be responsible for 125,110 cancers for all metropolitan and non-metropolitan areas of the U.S. (over 70-year lifetimes) for an annual rate of 1,787 cancers.
This figure is below 3% (4,716 deaths) of the projected 2003 lung cancer mortality rate of 157,200, even without adjusting for the non-lung cancer mortality inherent in their risk estimate, and therefore, to first order, would pass our plausibility test.
Extra slide - will not show
85Department of Engineering and Public Policy
Carnegie Mellon University
Our objective......in the work we've done on risk ranking has been to develop and demonstrate a method which:
• Uses experts to analyze and characterize the risks (because they have the necessary knowledge).
• Uses modern risk communication methods to describe the risks in multi-attribute terms (so that they will be understandable to educated members of the general public).
• Uses representative groups of laypeople to perform the actual ranking (because ranking requires the application of social values).
• Produces a fairly "thick" description of the deliberations, including ranks which are robust, and which are useful as an input in risk management decision making.
Extra slide - will not show
86Department of Engineering and Public Policy
Carnegie Mellon University
Steps in the risk-ranking method
Extra slide - will not show
Step ADefine andcategorize therisks to beranked.
Step CDescribe therisks in terms ofthe attributes inrisk summarysheets.Step B
Identify the riskattributes thatshould beconsidered.
Step DSelectparticipantsand performthe riskrankings.
Step EDescribe theissuesidentified andthe resultingrankings.
87Department of Engineering and Public Policy
Carnegie Mellon University
First experimental test-bed:risks in schools
We chose risks in a hypothetical middle school as our test-bed because:
• most people know and care about the topic -- major efforts are not required to get lay subjects briefed before participating in studies;
• risks in schools are not the responsibility of any single existing U.S. Government risk management agency;
• the topic offers opportunities to address a wide range of physical and chemical risks as well as important social issues;
• there are a number of recent studies on which we can build.
Extra slide - will not show
88Department of Engineering and Public Policy
Carnegie Mellon University
Example of a risk summary
sheet
Risk name
Brief summary description of the risk.
Tabular summary, evaluating the risk in terms of the standard attributes and description of the level of uncertainty.
General description of the risk, discussion of the risk in thespecific context of the Centerville Middle School, and discussion of what the school has done to deal with the risk.
Extra slide - will not show
89Department of Engineering and Public Policy
Carnegie Mellon University
Town of Centerville
Centervil le Middle School
Alvarez ExpresswayC&LL Rail Road
230kV transmiss ion l ine
C&LL Rail Road
water tower
Schuman Hil l regional park
fire s tation
police
c ity hall
air field
c liff
cliff
to Centerv il le Heights
Centervil le High School
Wau
sau
Riv
er
Centervil le Elementary School
City of Centerville
0 0.5 1.0
Scale in milesSewage treatment plant
Centervil le Landing
Water treatment plant
Wa
usau R
iver
Extra slide - will not show
90Department of Engineering and Public Policy
Carnegie Mellon University
CentervilleMiddle School
Room 107 girl's
washroom
Room 108 classroom
Room 109 classroom
Room 110 classroom
Room 104 classroom
Room 131 classroom
Room 119 boy's
washroom
Room 130 auditorium
stage Room 140 utility
Room 135 library
Room 120 cafeteria
Room 121 kitchen
Centerville Middle School First Floor
0 10 20 30 40 50
Scale in feet
Rooms 100 to 103 administrative offices
serving area
elevator
utility tunnel
Room 141 janitorial
retaining wall
loading dock
Room 105 classroom
Room 106 classroom
Room 132 classroom
Room 133 classroom
Room 134 classroom
Room 136 classroom
Room 137 classroom
Room 138 classroom
Room 139 classroom
Extra slide - will not show
91Department of Engineering and Public Policy
Carnegie Mellon University
Second test-bed
The middle school test-bed involved only health and safety risks.
After developing and refining the method in that context, we then developed a second test-bed (based on a hypothetical county) in order to extend the work to include ecological and environmental risks.
A major part of the work in creating this second test-bed has involved developing an appropriate set of relevant attributes. That's a fairly long story that I will not go into, but Ph.D. student Henry Willis has done a great job with this problem.
Extra slide - will not show
92Department of Engineering and Public Policy
Carnegie Mellon University
DePaul County
Centerville
I-82
C&LL RR
DePaul County
Au Claire River
Wausau River
Dubuque River
1
2
1. Fishkill Power Plant 2. Site of former Johnson's Wood Products Plant 3. DeKay County Sanatary Land Fill 4. Cebulka's Premium Chickens 5. Ganley Estates 6. Feldman's Feeds 7. Site of proposed Twin Pines Mall
3
State Route 246
4
2 40 6 8
C&LL RR
Scale in miles
5
6
Harris State Park
Crystal Lake
7
I-82
Forest
Forest
Forest
Extra slide - will not show
93Department of Engineering and Public Policy
Carnegie Mellon University
Risks used in the two test-bedsThe county-level test-bed• Agricultural runoff• Air pollution from electric power generation• Food poisoning• Genetically-modified corn• Invasive species• Land filling municipal solid waste• Motor vehicle accidents• Recreational motor boating• Road salt and road salt runoff• Transporting hazardous materials by truck
The middle school test-bed• Accidental injuries• Airplane Crash• Allergens• Asbestos• Bites and Stings• Building Collapse• Commuting to school on foot, bike or
by car• Common infectious diseases• Drowning• Electrical Power• Electromagnetic fields (EMF)• Fire and Explosion• Food Poisoning• Hazardous material transport• Intentional Injury• Lead poisoning• Less common infectious diseases• Lightning• Radon gas• School bus accidents• Self-Inflicted Injury• Team Sports
Extra slide - will not show
94Department of Engineering and Public Policy
Carnegie Mellon University
Typical ranking procedure
Individualholistic ranking
Start groupranking
IndividualMAranking
Revisegroup ranking
FinalindividualH and MArankings
Studyall materials
Extra slide - will not show
95Department of Engineering and Public Policy
Carnegie Mellon University
Summary of findingswith school test-bed:
Consistency between the rankings that have resulted from the holistic and multiattribute procedures has been good for both individuals and for groups, suggesting that these procedures capture an underlying construct of riskiness.
Rankings of risks were similar across individuals and groups, even though individuals and groups did not always agree on the relative importance of risk attributes.
Lower consistency between the risk rankings from the holistic and multiattribute procedures and lower agreement among individuals and groups regarding these rankings were observed for a set of high-variance risks.
Extra slide - will not show
96Department of Engineering and Public Policy
Carnegie Mellon University
The story in numbers:
Initial IndividualHolistic
Risk Rankings
Final IndividualHolistic
Risk Rankings
GroupHolistic
Risk Rankings
Initial IndividualMulti-AttributeRisk Rankings
Final IndividualMulti-AttributeRisk Rankings
GroupMulti-AttributeRisk Rankings
(Step D1)
0.595
(Step D3)
0.829
(Step D5)
0.860
(from Step D2)
0.759
(from Step D4)
0.913
(from Step D6)
0.857
0.863
0.770 0.915
0.595 0.686 0.658
0.858 0.915
0.920
218 individuals (in 43 groups) have performed risk rankings for health and safety risks.
Extra slide - will not show
97Department of Engineering and Public Policy
Carnegie Mellon University
Summary...(Cont.)
Participants reported high levels of satisfaction with their groups’ decision-making processes and the resulting rankings, and these reports were corroborated by regression analyses.
Because of the generally high levels of consistency, satisfaction, and agreement we have observed we conclude that this deliberative method is capable of producing risk rankings that can serve as informative inputs to public risk-management decision making.
Extra slide - will not show
98Department of Engineering and Public Policy
Carnegie Mellon University
Findings fromthe environmental/ecological studies
• Participants are able to complete expanded ranking task.
• Holistic and multiattribute rankings are consistent with each other.
• Agreement shown between individuals and groups.
• Though less satisfied with attribute ranking process, participants revealed satisfaction with final group risk rankings.
• Results parallel previous findings from health and safety test-bed.
Extra slide - will not show
99Department of Engineering and Public Policy
Carnegie Mellon University
In order to study public perceptions……of CCD, we had to modify the basic mental model interview approach since the typical member of the general public knows nothing about this technology.
Part 1: Using language that we made as neutral as we could, we explained the motivation of wishing to reduce the accumulation of atmospheric CO2 and briefly outlined the basic design options of CCD technologies. We then asked a series of questions to elicit reactions.
Part 2: Briefly discussed three questions: 1) "Can the technology to separate and dispose of carbon dioxide be made practical, and cheap enough"; 2) "Once the CO2 is put down deep in rock formations or deep in the oceans, will it stay there?" and 3) "If the technology can be made cheap and reliable, will the energy industry adopt it and use it widely?" Again, we asked a series of questions to elicit reactions.
Part 3: Discussed "some of the concerns that critics might raise about these technologies." Topics covered including CO2 pipeline issues, slow leaks, fast releases, issues related to ocean ecology and issues related to hydrogen safety.We asked a series of specific evaluative questions.
Extra slide - will not show
100Department of Engineering and Public Policy
Carnegie Mellon University
Results from our pilot study suggested...
...that the standard concerns about siting would arise but may not be dramatically different than those associated with other large technologies.
Fears about rupture of high pressure CO2 pipelines did not appear to be any greater than those associated with natural gas pipelines.
Some concerns were expressed about large rapid releases from deep geological formations, but they looked manageable.
However, while deep geological injection appeared like it would prove to be publicly acceptable, the pilot results suggested that proposals for deep ocean injection were likely to lead to vigorous public opposition.
Extra slide - will not show
101Department of Engineering and Public Policy
Carnegie Mellon University
Ocean sequestration example commentsI think the concern that really strikes me the most would have to be pumping it under very high pressure into the deep ocean . . . I know the ocean is very big and is very deep but I’m wondering what kind of affect it would have on our oceans. [S1]
That, if this extra CO2 is absorbed into the ocean, would it disrupt whatever balance is in the ocean? That it might be harmful to things that live in the ocean. [S3]
Well, where are they going to build these? Do they have to be near the ocean? Or are they going to build big pipelines into the ocean to flush the stuff away? In the process of doing this, is there going to be pollution occurring, from this process? [S5]
So, I don’t necessarily like the fact that it’s being pumped down deep in the ocean, kind of like out of sight, out of mind. [S7]
So, if we were to put it, like, in the ocean, we could be messing with some form of life that’s on the bottom. I don’t think we have much knowledge of what’s down there. Because we really can’t explore that deep. So we’d be messing with something we have no knowledge of. [S8]
Extra slide - will not show
102Department of Engineering and Public Policy
Carnegie Mellon University
One of the things we noted……in our pilot studies was that subjects wanted to consider alternatives to CCD.
Accordingly, in designing the closed form survey, we included questions which allowed us to explore preferences across several alternative strategies for reducing CO2 emissions.
Survey outline:1. Background2a. Climate change 2b. General issues including climate change 3. Options for limiting CO2 4. Energy systems that dispose of CO2
5. Places to dispose of CO2
5.1 Deep rock formations5.2 Disposal of CO2 in the deep ocean6. Final evaluation7. Environmental issues (NEPS = New Ecological Paradigm Scale)
8. A few questions about yourself
103Department of Engineering and Public Policy
Carnegie Mellon University
Views on climate change
The continuing release of CO2 into the earth's atmosphere during this century may result in serious climate change.
1 4 7completely disagree
Government regulation should begin to significantly limit the amount of CO2 that is released into the earth's atmosphere.
Government regulation will begin to significantly limit the amount of CO2 that is released into the earth's atmosphere at some time in the next 20 years.
4.6
4.7
4.0
Extra slide - will not show
104Department of Engineering and Public Policy
Carnegie Mellon University
Not highon respondent's list of concerns
This is consistent with previous studies that we and others have done in the U.S. Results are quite different in Europe.
BUT, remember, despite this result, climate change clearly has political legs in the U.S. in many states.
Extra slide - will not show
105Department of Engineering and Public Policy
Carnegie Mellon University
OptionsOptions that will reduce CO2 emissions by 50%
from your energy consumptionRank
1 is what youwould pay the
most for.
Biomass Blend:50% from biomass, 50% from regular coalHalf of the energy comes from regular coal, and the other half comes from biomass. Biomassrefers to harvesting and burning special fast growing grasses and trees to make energy. Biomassreleases CO2 that plants have absorbed from the atmosphere so no new CO2 is produced.
Coal Blend with deep geological disposal of CO2:50% from coal with deep geological disposal of CO2, 50% from regular coalHalf of the energy comes from regular coal. The other half also comes from coal, but won't let theCO2 enter the atmosphere. Instead they will separate the CO2 and dispose of it thousands of feetunderground.
Coal Blend with deep ocean disposal of CO2:50% from coal with deep ocean disposal of CO2, 50% from regular coalHalf of the energy comes from regular coal. The other half also comes from coal, but won't let theCO2 enter the atmosphere. Instead they will separate the CO2 and dispose of it deep in the ocean.
Energy Efficiency:100% regular coalAll of the energy comes from regular coal. This option will replace appliances and lights in yourhouse with much more efficient ones so that you use half as much electricity while enjoying usingyour lights and appliances just as much as you do now. Using less electricity will result in lessCO2 being produced.
Hydro-electric Blend:50% from hydro-electric, 50% from regular coalHalf of the energy comes from regular coal, and the other half comes from hydro-electric. Hydro-electric refers to making electricity with water power from dams. Hydro-electric produces noCO2.
Natural gas Blend:100% from natural gasThe energy comes from burning natural gas in highly efficient plants. Burning natural gasefficiently produces about half as much CO2 as burning coal.
Nuclear power Blend:50% from nuclear power, 50% from regular coalHalf of the energy comes from regular coal, and the other half comes nuclear power.Nuclear power produces no CO2.
Solar power Blend:50% from solar power, 50% from regular coalHalf of the energy comes from regular coal, and the other half comes from solar. Solar powerrefers to making electricity with energy from the sun. Solar power produces no CO2.
Wind power Blend:50% from wind power, 50% from regular coalHalf of the energy comes from regular coal, and the other half comes from wind. Wind powerrefers to making electricity with energy from the wind. Wind power produces no CO2.
"Whatever your own beliefs are about climate change, imagine that the U.S. government has decided that we must cut in half the amount of CO2 that is released by generating electric power.
Suppose that your electricity supplier has different methods of meeting the goal to reduce CO2 emissions by 50%. Some of these methods use a mixture of generation systems that produce little or no CO2, combined with regular coal-burning power plants. These methods do not all cost the same because some ways of making electricity with less CO2 are cheaper than others.
The supplier will be offering their customers a choice of how they would like them to meet this reduction. Some of the options to reduce CO2 emissions will be more expensive than the way we produce electricity today, so we would like you to tell us which method you would be willing to pay the most for."
Extra slide - will not show
106Department of Engineering and Public Policy
Carnegie Mellon University
Rank order of options
Options used different generation mixes (base of coal) in order to reduce CO2 emissions by 50%.
Extra slide - will not show
107Department of Engineering and Public Policy
Carnegie Mellon University
Evaluationof
specifics
The next three slides, which I will not show, give you the numbers on these and other results.
Extra slide - will not show
108Department of Engineering and Public Policy
Carnegie Mellon University
Summary evaluations
1 4 7completely oppose
completely favor
1 4 7completely oppose
completely favor
Geological disposal:
before details
after details
before details
after details
Ocean disposal:
Extra slide - will not show
109Department of Engineering and Public Policy
Carnegie Mellon University
CCD Conclusions
The results of this study suggest that, at best, the public is likely to view this technology with mixed feelings.
High levels of public acceptance will almost certainly require:
• broader public understanding of the need to limit carbon dioxide emissions and alternative options for carbon management;
• a much stronger scientific understanding and a larger empirical base for claims about the likely efficacy and safety of disposal; and
• an approach to public communication, regulation, monitoring, and emergency response which is open and respectful of public concerns.
Extra slide - will not show
110Department of Engineering and Public Policy
Carnegie Mellon University
CCD Conclusions…(Cont.)
An open and inclusive approach does not guarantee success.
However, an arrogant approach such as the one adopted in the past by the industries responsible for nuclear power and genetically modified crops, could create a level of public distrust that makes the wide-spread implementation of geological carbon disposal in the U.S. difficult, if not impossible.
Extra slide - will not show