Gregory, R., Failing, L., Harstone, M., Long, G., McDaniels, T., and Ohlson, D. (2012). Creating Alternatives. In: Gregory et al. (Eds). Structured decision making: a practical guide to environmental management choices. Wiley-Blackwell: Chichester (UK), pp. 150-172.
Reedman, Luke J. and Graham, Paul W. (2013) Transport Sector Greenhouse Gas Emissions Projections 2013-2050, Report No. EP139979, CSIRO, Australia.
I decided to look at Gregories chapter on Creating Alternatives and a paper from the CSIRO which looks at scenarios for the transport sector and try to categorise the work they had done into Alternatives. This makes a lot more sense to me now after attending lecture 6 on Scenarios. I was initially confused because the scenarios in the CSIRO paper were not complete and comparable as per the discussion in Gregories chapter on Creating Alternatives. Now I can see that alternatives would be established within each scenario. The Scenario provides different possible future states of the world and each scenario would have several alternatives to choose from.
For the CSIRO paper the Scenarios are defined with four different possible futures:
2.2.1 SCENARIOS DEFINED
With this background the four scenarios modelled in this report are as follows:
Central policy scenario — Assumes a world with a 550 ppm stabilisation target and an Australian emission target of a 5 per cent reduction on 2000 levels by 2020 and an 80 per cent reduction by 2050
Low price scenario — The same as the central scenario except that the stabilisation target is reached at a later date such that the carbon price is initially lower but converges by 2030
High price scenario — Assumes a world with more ambitious global action and an Australian emission target of a 25 per cent reduction on 2000 levels by 2020 and an 80 per cent reduction by 2050
No carbon price scenario – the same global context as the central scenario except that Australia does not participate and there is no domestic carbon price.
Firstly Gregory states that evaluating alternative be a bottom up approach rather than top town. First establish the nature of the problem , then set specific objectives that put the problem into context, with explicit performance measures that can be used to measure and asses alternatives .
CSIRO states it compares alternatives for non-road transport mode in both bottom up and top down approaches page 17:
3.1 Non-road transport modes: projection methodology
This section describes the approach taken by CSIRO to model the non-road transport modes in the context of integrated bottom-up and top-down transport sector emissions projection modelling.
Gregory states alternatives are often established from value judgements by people that are trying to provide decision makers with different recommendations. Alternatives offer solutions through a set of choices. The different alternatives should provide good information and details on how they will affect the fundamental objectives.
CSIRO discusses key assumptions they have taken into account for the Transport Demand Sector on page 13
Gregory discusses ways of analysing data and Developing alternatives
Brainstorm a range of potential responses
- lists objectives and identifies actions that satisfies each concern
- allow and encourage a creative, no-boundaries, value-focused exploration of a wide range of ideas
Organise actions into complete alternatives for developing strategies
- combine a long list of potential solutions into complete and comparable alternatives.
- score and rank individual actions or elements and then select the top ranking ones
- combine the ingredients into logical combinations, themes
- Strategy table
- Sequenced strategies temporal aspect
CSIRO paper provides examples (I am sorry the tables will not copy into the blog)
- ranking page 16 Ranking of surveyed factors considered in buying a vehicle from ABS (2009)
2. categorising into logical combinations and themes page 17 Changes in preferences for road vehicle types and sizes, FCAI (2011)
3. Sequenced table page 19 Sequenced table 19 CSIRO average light vehicle fuel efficiency improvements inclusive of uptake of alternative vehicle drivetrains (percent per annum
The CSIRO paper also discusses many of the other points in Gregories Chapter and provides many tables for data analysis.
Gregory also discusses
Interatively improve alternatives
- New ideas come from learning gained
- Understanding trade-offs, how many objectives to does an alternative meet
- Create a consequences table
Dealing with constraints
- keep alternatives realistic, manageable, administrative, policy or resource driven
- technically possible and will perform well
- economically attractive
- practical and will get support
Common pitfalls and traps – psychological, cognitive and behavioural traps
Anchoring and tweaking – making minor incremental changes such as increasing the number of lanes on a road or extending existing rail
Accepting constraints – value judgements eg high speed rail
Linking alternatives to labels –
Relying on sunk costs – justifying past decisions, road and rail infrastructure. Also the constraint to change distribution outlets and networks for different fuels or electricity
Avoiding tradeoffs – it is to controversial – consider the discussion going on regarding where Sydney can have a new airport. if we compared the cost of an airport both financial, social and environmental vs developing high speed rail in the future to reduce airport congestion
Quitting to soon – policy assumptions and constraints
Not knowing when to quit