Overcoming the Tragedy of the Commons via Persuasive, Educational Surveys

Abstract: With the Tragedy of the Commons, the self-interested majority favors a climate-harming policy because of perverse individual incentives. “If only I change, I’m worse off; if we all change, we’re all better off ... hence, I won’t change.” Self-interested Bay Area majorities favor two climate-harming policies: a) Majorities prefer Not-In-My-Back-Yard (NIMBY) land use policies over regional smart growth to minimize driving, b) Majorities prefer free suburban workplace parking to subsidize solo commuting over green commute alternatives. Two persuasive surveys provide a “fair” set of pro/con policy arguments for #a and #b above (where “fair” follows political science “dual competing frames” theory). The pro-climate arguments are based on a richer set of facts, but the main argument is an explanation of the Tragedy, followed by an appeal for long-term over short-term optimization. Both surveys were sufficiently persuasive to “change belief” to bring about a pro-climate voting majority.

NOTES:

The two educational/persuasive surveys can bring about Druckman’s “belief content” change. IE persuasion occurs, it’s not just a battle over which of two different frames are more important in the voters’ mind.

Citizens aren’t educated about the fields of land use or transportation as part of civic learning. Both fields are complicated topics where urban legends inform voting. Everyone experiences land use and everyone drives, so therefore voters think they are experts. For complex Tragedy of the Commons issues, Walter Lippmann’s 1922 critique (oversimplified and ill-informed citizens) is accurate.

Three parking facts within the parking survey are “new” to respondents and are persuasive:

• Driving has to be reduced to meet Climate objectives.

• Commute/parking behavior is radically different in SF versus Silicon Valley, because of parking pricing

• Free suburban office parking represents a perverse $7.59 per day subsidy for harmful single occupant vehicle commuting.

Two anti-NIMBY facts are new and persuasive:

• Regional smart growth reduces CO2, so there is a downside to fighting growth in Palo Alto.
• Palo Alto was not singled out for especially bad treatment by the regional planners, many cities object to the regional growth strategy, hence the strategy is fair.

A panel of credible professional methodologists could take the survey instruments, modify them a bit, and bless the resultant instruments as “fair.” Such a process could provide a moderate to high level of Druckman’s “source credibility.”

If such a persuasive survey could be promoted to achieve millions of responses in California, then there would be a better chance of overcoming the Tragedy of the Commons.

REFERENCES:

Suburban parking charges:

• Policy paper (cites Tversky re carrots vs. sticks): http://www.cities21.org/cms/index.php?page=parking-charges
• The survey: http://www.cities21.org/paidParkingSrvyResults.htm

The Palo Alto anti-NIMBY survey:

• http://www.cities21.org/cms/index.php?page=survey-add-people-or-harm-climate

Political Science References

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons
• Willem E. Saris, and Paul M Sniderman (eds.), 2004, Studies in Public Opinion: Attitudes, Nonattitudes, Measurement Error, and Change, Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press. Chapter 5, The Structure of Political Argument and the Logic of Issue Framing.
• On the Limits of Framing Effects: Who Can Frame? James Druckman, University of Minnesota. The Journal of Politics (November 2001 Vol 63 #4), 63:1041-1066 Cambridge University Press