Sharon A. Jones,
A Methodology for Evaluating the Usefulness of Global-Change Information
for Long-Term Decision-Making: A case study of fisheries management
in the Pacific Northwest.
Committee: Hadi Dowlatabadi (EPP), Paul Fischbeck (SDS/EPP), Baruch
Fischhoff - chair (SDS/EPP), Denise Lach (Oregon State Univ.), and Granger
Morgan (EPP/ECE/Heinz)
This thesis develops and demonstrates a general framework to examine
the usefulness of global change information available to regional decision
makers. The method is applied to salmon management in the Columbia
River Basin. Interviews were conducted with 14 regional decision
makers. Decision makers were found to recognize the potential
importance of climate change. However, given the many uncertain
parameters they already face, they have not yet considered it worth
to include climate considerations in their analysis. A decision
analysis confirmed that the optimal decision is not changed by an inclusion
of climate change impacts as they are currently predicted, although
including climate change impacts would reduce the difference in expected
utility between the two leading alternatives. The decision models
used for assessing long-term salmon viability are incomplete in terms
of environmental factors. The models currently rely on aggregate
estimates of survival rates that are insufficient to predict the impact
of climate change on the salmon resource.
The decision makers indicated that their reluctance
to include climate change impacts in their analyses is com-pounded by
the difficulty of accessing climate information in usable forms.
If climate change information is to factor into such analyses, changes
are needed in the type of information that is generated and made available
to the regional decision makers. Credible entry points for climate
change information are identified and organizations most receptive to
such information are noted. The method demonstrated here should
be useful in assessing climate change information needs in other regional
decision making contexts.
The work was supported by a Claire Booth Luce
Fellowship, EPRI grant WO2141-24, Battelle PNL contract DINE94, and
academic funds from Carnegie Mellon University. |
|
Larisa M. Naples,
Outcomes-Based Evaluation for Educational Programs in Engineering:
A focus on the construction industry's need.
Committee: Susan Ambrose (Teaching Ctr), Bill Bickel (Univ. of Pittsburgh),
Cliff Davidson (CEE/EPP), Chris Hendrickson (CEE), and Indira Nair - chair
(EPP)
In
1995, the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology announced
that as of 1998, engineering schools will be required to provide evidence
that their programs are achieving specified educational outcomes.
This is problematic since the outcomes are not defined in terms of the
behavioral objectives and performance benchmarks needed to provide a clear
measure of achievement. There is currently no non-arbitrary method
for defining behavioral objectives, or using them to inform decisions
regarding accreditation, or educational reforms. This thesis uses
"authentic assessment," "outcomes-based assessment," and "mastery learning"
to create an evaluation tool called a "meta-assessment rubric."
A method for constructing such a rubric was developed, using survey and
focus-group techniques, multi-attribute value elicitations, and mixed-integer,
linear programming.
Judgments from a group of 84 engineers in the
construction industry were used to develop a "meta-assessment rubric"
which includes 12 weighted educational outcomes: engineering knowledge
(15%), communication skills (12%), thought processing (12%), basic math/science
knowledge (10%), personal skills (10%), organization skills (9%), computer
skills (8%), business practice (7%), ethics (6%), social sciences knowledge
(4%), humanities knowledge (4%), and international skills (3%).
For each outcome, a detailed definition is provided along with performance
benchmarks. These were developed cooperatively, and although weights
were independently assigned by each engineer, discord as to the relative
importance of the outcomes was small (about 2%, on average). Strategies
for applying the same methods to other areas of engineering are presented.
An analysis of sociopolitical issues surrounding the use of the method
is presented, based on faculty critiques.
The work was supported by Carnegie Mellon academic
funds.
|
| Morgan and
Dowlatabadi Address Funding for Energy Related Basic Technology Research
Granger
Morgan (EPP/ECE/Heinz) and Hadi Dowlatabadi (EPP) argue that dramatically
expanded research support for basic energy technology should be part of
the nation's climate policy in a "viewpoint" piece in Environmental Science
& Technology (December 1997). While energy conservation and
changes in life style may play a role, especially in industrializing countries
such as China and India, "more and more people are going to want cars,
larger homes with good space conditioning, a wide range of consumer products,
and a varied diet that includes some meat," they argue. All of these
require energy. This leaves "new technology as the only plausible
strategy by which to reduce carbon dioxide emissions," they write.
But, will the new technology be there when it
is needed? Morgan and Dowlatabadi argue that the market can drive
the development of technologies whose fundamentals have been well developed.
However, markets typically under-invest in what Harvard's Lewis Branscomb
has termed basic technology research. Such research produces the knowledge
base which the market needs to build new products and processes.
Where will the money for an expanded research program come from?
"Significant increases in traditional government funded R&D are unlikely
for at least several decades while the governments of the industrialized
world try to figure out how to pay off accumulated debt and control the
growth of social entitlements," they argue. But they suggest, if
in designing a carbon tax or an emissions trading policy, a way is found
to divert a portion of the associated flows of wealth into investments
in basic technology research, the problem could be solved. They
argue that the best way to spend the funds thus collected is not in government
labs but through non-governmental collaborative research organizations.
_____________________________________________________________________ |
