More nuclear reactors or not?
In 1973 there was an oil crisis in the world which made the Dutch government think about extending the number of nuclear plants above the two that were already in use. However, after elaborate discussions the government decided against this solution. In 1977 there was again a shortage of oil and then the new government was in favor of more nuclear energy. The problem was that a large active part of the population was against nuclear energy. They organized large demonstrations at the nuclear plants of the Netherlands and the nuclear plant in Kalkar (Germany) that was built partly with Dutch support.
To convince the population of the necessity of more nuclear energy the government decided to organize a “broad social discussion about the future energy supply”, the so called BMD. After some discussion, it was decided to install an independent steering committee for the BMD with as chairman a former minister Maurits de Brauw. Because he asked a considerable salary to leave his fixed job and to accept this temporary job, there followed a fierce discussion with the extreme opponents of nuclear energy, who were afraid that the whole BMD was only an effort to push through the decision to build more nuclear plants. They expected that the discussion would be manipulated and the steering committee of De Brauw would suggest to build more nuclear plants.
To convince the population of the necessity of more nuclear energy the government decided to organize a “broad social discussion about the future energy supply”, the so called BMD. After some discussion, it was decided to install an independent steering committee for the BMD with as chairman a former minister Maurits de Brauw. Because he asked a considerable salary to leave his fixed job and to accept this temporary job, there followed a fierce discussion with the extreme opponents of nuclear energy, who were afraid that the whole BMD was only an effort to push through the decision to build more nuclear plants. They expected that the discussion would be manipulated and the steering committee of De Brauw would suggest to build more nuclear plants.
A new tool to collect the opinion of the people
While these discussions were going on I was convinced that the expected discussion would lead nowhere because the extremists would control the discussions and in the end the government would say that the population did not know enough about the nuclear energy to take its opinion into account. Besides the government would say that the people participating were not representative for the population as a whole.
Given this situation I spoke with two of my students, Peter Neijens and Jan De Ridder, about the possibility to develop a questionnaire that would provide the respondents with the necessary information about the different possible options to produce more energy and their consequences, before they were asked about their preferences of these different options. This approach to aim at collecting the well informed opinion of the people was completely new for opinion research. Although my students had their doubts, we started to develop the idea. We had to decide several issues:
While these discussions were going on I was convinced that the expected discussion would lead nowhere because the extremists would control the discussions and in the end the government would say that the population did not know enough about the nuclear energy to take its opinion into account. Besides the government would say that the people participating were not representative for the population as a whole.
Given this situation I spoke with two of my students, Peter Neijens and Jan De Ridder, about the possibility to develop a questionnaire that would provide the respondents with the necessary information about the different possible options to produce more energy and their consequences, before they were asked about their preferences of these different options. This approach to aim at collecting the well informed opinion of the people was completely new for opinion research. Although my students had their doubts, we started to develop the idea. We had to decide several issues:
- Which possible options to cope with the energy problem should be evaluated?
- What were the consequences of these different options?
- From where would we get this information?
- What should we do if experts would have different opinions?
- How should we present this information to the respondents?
- How could they evaluate this information?
- How could we help them to make a choice on the basis of their own evaluations of the possible consequences of the different measures?
- Could we do this in such a way that a representative sample of the population would participate?
Development of the idea of the choice questionnaire
Based on the decision making research of Irmtraud and me, I thought that we should specify the consequences of all possible strategies and the probability of these consequences, including the possible uncertainties about the size of the consequences and the probabilities.
We also knew from our measurement experiments, where Peter Neijens with Leo van Doorn had been involved in, that we could ask respondents to provide evaluations on continuous scales.
We concluded also that if we would use as measurement procedure an evaluation procedure using numbers then we could get a total evaluation of the “Subjective Expected Utility” of the consequences for each measure by adding up the evaluations of the different consequences. If we would use our computer assisted data collection these total evaluations could be generated automatically.
All these conclusions were drawn on the basis of our earlier research. However we had no clear idea how we could get the proper information about the different possible options to produce extra electricity and the consequences of these options. We supposed that this information should come from the BMD.
Based on the decision making research of Irmtraud and me, I thought that we should specify the consequences of all possible strategies and the probability of these consequences, including the possible uncertainties about the size of the consequences and the probabilities.
We also knew from our measurement experiments, where Peter Neijens with Leo van Doorn had been involved in, that we could ask respondents to provide evaluations on continuous scales.
We concluded also that if we would use as measurement procedure an evaluation procedure using numbers then we could get a total evaluation of the “Subjective Expected Utility” of the consequences for each measure by adding up the evaluations of the different consequences. If we would use our computer assisted data collection these total evaluations could be generated automatically.
All these conclusions were drawn on the basis of our earlier research. However we had no clear idea how we could get the proper information about the different possible options to produce extra electricity and the consequences of these options. We supposed that this information should come from the BMD.
The first experiments
While we were waiting till be BMD would start, we did our first experiments with the above suggested procedure to provide information, the evaluation and the computing of the total expected subjective expected utility of a chosen measure to generate energy. One of the first respondents which tried our pilot questionnaire was my father who was a physicist. He knew a lot of these issues but had no experience with computers. The result was that he got completely lost in the questionnaire because on the computer the information and the questions were spead over different screens. This problem was clear and we decided to forget for the moment the computer.
We decided to use for each measure a card on which all information and the evaluation procedure could be presented. A card with a simplified procedure for the option “nuclear energy” is presented below. In this illustration we present only two possible consequences but there were several more. For more information, we refer to the dissertation of Peter Neijens.
While we were waiting till be BMD would start, we did our first experiments with the above suggested procedure to provide information, the evaluation and the computing of the total expected subjective expected utility of a chosen measure to generate energy. One of the first respondents which tried our pilot questionnaire was my father who was a physicist. He knew a lot of these issues but had no experience with computers. The result was that he got completely lost in the questionnaire because on the computer the information and the questions were spead over different screens. This problem was clear and we decided to forget for the moment the computer.
We decided to use for each measure a card on which all information and the evaluation procedure could be presented. A card with a simplified procedure for the option “nuclear energy” is presented below. In this illustration we present only two possible consequences but there were several more. For more information, we refer to the dissertation of Peter Neijens.
The respondents had first to evaluate whether this consequence was of no importance according to them. No importance had to be indicated by a cross and then the evaluation of the advantages and disadvantages of this consequence was not needed anymore. If the consequence was of some importance, they had to evaluate whether it was an advantage or a disadvantage and how large the advantage or disadvantage was, taking into account that “a neither large nor small” advantage or disadvantage was expressed in a value of 400. Adding up their evaluations the respondents would get for all advantages and disadvantages a total score, giving an idea how they evaluated this possible option to generate extra electricity. The same procedure was used for all different options to generate extra electricity.
In several experiments we had checked if people could use this procedure and could by themselves, or with help of the interviewer, compute the total Expected Subjective Utility for each measure. This approach seemed to work after a simple introduction of the procedure.
In several experiments we had checked if people could use this procedure and could by themselves, or with help of the interviewer, compute the total Expected Subjective Utility for each measure. This approach seemed to work after a simple introduction of the procedure.
Connection with the BMD
One day there was a meeting about the BMD organized in the university where Maurits de Brauw was invited as one of the speakers. First of all, my opinion was confirmed that mainly activists against nuclear energy would be present and that they would loudly dominate the discussion. However this changed when the chairman of the meeting asked De Brauw to speak. When he came to the front, as he is presented on the photo, the room was immediately completely silent and he got the opportunity to explain how he expected to organize the BMD. After that followed an orderly discussion. Some people have this charisma that even violent opponents get silent and listen to what is said. De Brauw was such a person.
He organized a large committee and announced that people could apply for money for their activities. We were waiting for this opportunity and had prepared already our proposal during the two previous years. Fortunately we also got money for our research and our proposal was also accepted. A committee of members of the parliament from different parties would be responsible for the information we would use in the questionnaire. It seemed that De Brauw liked our approach so much that he appointed himself as the chairman of the committee who would talk with us about different issues of our research. Besides him a secretary coming from a ministry was added to the commission and as a substitute of himself, if he could not come, he appointed, Professor A. Köbben, a well-known scientific advisor of the Christian Democratic Party.
If De Brauw was there, the discussions were extremely well ordered and led to results but his substitute made a big mess. For example he proposed to discuss all points of the agenda at the same time. After such a meeting we went home and were surprised how such a person could be a political advisor. After such meetings I called the secretary and we made together the minutes of the meeting and formulated the points for the next meeting.
One of the things that had to be organized in these meetings concerned the information to be provided in the questionnaire and to be approved by the committee of members of the parliament. The result was according to me not correct. Especially with respect to the consequences of the different options to generate electricity. So I asked my father to check it and he made some corrections which seemed extremely obvious concerning CO2 production by the different options. Presenting the new version to the committee the proposal was accepted and we could start to collect the data.
One day there was a meeting about the BMD organized in the university where Maurits de Brauw was invited as one of the speakers. First of all, my opinion was confirmed that mainly activists against nuclear energy would be present and that they would loudly dominate the discussion. However this changed when the chairman of the meeting asked De Brauw to speak. When he came to the front, as he is presented on the photo, the room was immediately completely silent and he got the opportunity to explain how he expected to organize the BMD. After that followed an orderly discussion. Some people have this charisma that even violent opponents get silent and listen to what is said. De Brauw was such a person.
He organized a large committee and announced that people could apply for money for their activities. We were waiting for this opportunity and had prepared already our proposal during the two previous years. Fortunately we also got money for our research and our proposal was also accepted. A committee of members of the parliament from different parties would be responsible for the information we would use in the questionnaire. It seemed that De Brauw liked our approach so much that he appointed himself as the chairman of the committee who would talk with us about different issues of our research. Besides him a secretary coming from a ministry was added to the commission and as a substitute of himself, if he could not come, he appointed, Professor A. Köbben, a well-known scientific advisor of the Christian Democratic Party.
If De Brauw was there, the discussions were extremely well ordered and led to results but his substitute made a big mess. For example he proposed to discuss all points of the agenda at the same time. After such a meeting we went home and were surprised how such a person could be a political advisor. After such meetings I called the secretary and we made together the minutes of the meeting and formulated the points for the next meeting.
One of the things that had to be organized in these meetings concerned the information to be provided in the questionnaire and to be approved by the committee of members of the parliament. The result was according to me not correct. Especially with respect to the consequences of the different options to generate electricity. So I asked my father to check it and he made some corrections which seemed extremely obvious concerning CO2 production by the different options. Presenting the new version to the committee the proposal was accepted and we could start to collect the data.
ing
The results
The BMD led to a set of 10 reports about different topics related with the measures to be taken and several special issues.
One of the most interesting reports concerned the costs of the different ways to produce electricity. One tried to predict on the basis of information from earlier years the price for the different sources in 1984. It turned out that no predictable procedure could be found.
Another report concerned nation wide discussions that the BMD had organized. This book informed about the participations in the different meetings and the opinion of the population that was obtained in that way. It was clear that many people had participated in one or another way in the BMD. However this procedure was not optimal because there is no indication if the opinions obtained in this way were representative for the opinions of the population.
A standard public opinion survey was also reported and showed that the majority of the population was against the construction of more nuclear plants. This was also the general conclusion which was formulated by De Brauw, the organizer of the BMD. In this report it is not clear in how far people were familiar with the possible options and their consequences. We would call this a report about the “uninformed opinion” of the population.
Our study, using the Choice Questionnaire was also included and showed a lot of information about the evaluation of the population of the consequences of the different measures to produce more energy. It could also be shown that around 75% of the respondents used these judgements to choose the options they thought to be the best. Therefore we can say that we measured the “informed opinion” of the population. In this case 64% was against the construction of extra nuclear plants. The most chosen option was to improve the energy situation with a combination of extra wind energy, extra measures to save energy and extra use of gas. Only 17% of the population suggested a combination including nuclear energy.
The dissertation of Peter Neijens
Peter Neijens (1986) wrote later his PhD thesis about this very interesting and novel research, which we were very proud of. He showed that all measures we took to help the people in forming an informed opinion, (1) giving information, (2) asking to evaluate this information, (3) computing total advantages and disadvantages and (4) summarizing the results, each contributed approximately 10% to the 75% who made a choice in agreement with their evaluations of the consequences. This suggested that the procedure had the expected success. Therefore several other researchers used our approach for similar issues under the name Information Choice Questionaire.
The results
The BMD led to a set of 10 reports about different topics related with the measures to be taken and several special issues.
One of the most interesting reports concerned the costs of the different ways to produce electricity. One tried to predict on the basis of information from earlier years the price for the different sources in 1984. It turned out that no predictable procedure could be found.
Another report concerned nation wide discussions that the BMD had organized. This book informed about the participations in the different meetings and the opinion of the population that was obtained in that way. It was clear that many people had participated in one or another way in the BMD. However this procedure was not optimal because there is no indication if the opinions obtained in this way were representative for the opinions of the population.
A standard public opinion survey was also reported and showed that the majority of the population was against the construction of more nuclear plants. This was also the general conclusion which was formulated by De Brauw, the organizer of the BMD. In this report it is not clear in how far people were familiar with the possible options and their consequences. We would call this a report about the “uninformed opinion” of the population.
Our study, using the Choice Questionnaire was also included and showed a lot of information about the evaluation of the population of the consequences of the different measures to produce more energy. It could also be shown that around 75% of the respondents used these judgements to choose the options they thought to be the best. Therefore we can say that we measured the “informed opinion” of the population. In this case 64% was against the construction of extra nuclear plants. The most chosen option was to improve the energy situation with a combination of extra wind energy, extra measures to save energy and extra use of gas. Only 17% of the population suggested a combination including nuclear energy.
The dissertation of Peter Neijens
Peter Neijens (1986) wrote later his PhD thesis about this very interesting and novel research, which we were very proud of. He showed that all measures we took to help the people in forming an informed opinion, (1) giving information, (2) asking to evaluate this information, (3) computing total advantages and disadvantages and (4) summarizing the results, each contributed approximately 10% to the 75% who made a choice in agreement with their evaluations of the consequences. This suggested that the procedure had the expected success. Therefore several other researchers used our approach for similar issues under the name Information Choice Questionaire.
The reaction of the government
All these results suggested that there was very little support for nuclear energy within the Dutch population. Nevertheless the minister of economic affairs, Van Ardenne, mentioned, when he received the report, that the BMD had not taken into account the cost of energy. Therefore the government was not willing to follow the conclusions of the BMD. As we have mentioned above, this was not true. An extended study of this issue was reported in one of the books published.
All these results suggested that there was very little support for nuclear energy within the Dutch population. Nevertheless the minister of economic affairs, Van Ardenne, mentioned, when he received the report, that the BMD had not taken into account the cost of energy. Therefore the government was not willing to follow the conclusions of the BMD. As we have mentioned above, this was not true. An extended study of this issue was reported in one of the books published.
The reaction of the press and people
For many people this remark was of course very disappointing and that was very well expressed in the cartoon presented below.
In fact later a group activists under the name “The revenge of Mr. De Brauw” stole from the ministry documents about nuclear energy in which it was mentioned that the government had already before the end of the BMD put aside a large budget to build 2 new nuclear plants of the type constructed in Kalkar where very large demonstrations were held in the past. All this went on without informing the parliament.
Fortunately this plan has never been executed because a bit later the Chernobyl catastrophe took place and although the same minister talked about it as if it was a “small fire in a bush”, the government as a whole was a bit wiser and did not present this plan to the parliament.
For us researchers and many other people in the Netherlands it was very shocking to see how the government completely ignored the public opinion.
For many people this remark was of course very disappointing and that was very well expressed in the cartoon presented below.
In fact later a group activists under the name “The revenge of Mr. De Brauw” stole from the ministry documents about nuclear energy in which it was mentioned that the government had already before the end of the BMD put aside a large budget to build 2 new nuclear plants of the type constructed in Kalkar where very large demonstrations were held in the past. All this went on without informing the parliament.
Fortunately this plan has never been executed because a bit later the Chernobyl catastrophe took place and although the same minister talked about it as if it was a “small fire in a bush”, the government as a whole was a bit wiser and did not present this plan to the parliament.
For us researchers and many other people in the Netherlands it was very shocking to see how the government completely ignored the public opinion.