No abstract

Uncertainty is pervasive in ecology where the difficulties of dealing with sources of uncertainty are exacerbated by variation in the system itself. Attempts at classifying uncertainty in ecology have, for the most part, focused exclusively on epistemic uncertainty. In this paper we classify uncertainty into two main categories: epistemic uncertainty (uncertainty in determinate facts) and linguistic uncertainty (uncertainty in language). We provide a classification of sources of uncertainty under the two main categories and demonstrate how each impacts on applications in ecology and conservation biology. In particular, we demonstrate the importance of recognizing the effect of linguistic uncertainty, in addition to epistemic uncertainty, in ecological applications. The significance to ecology and conservation biology of developing a clear understanding of the various types of uncertainty, how they arise and how they might best be dealt with is highlighted. Finally, we discuss the various general strategies for dealing with each type of uncertainty and offer suggestions for treating compounding uncertainty from a range of sources.

Looks at the Quine–Putnam indispensability argument in the philosophy of mathematics. This argument urges us to place mathematical entities on the same ontological footing as other theoretical entities indispensable to our best scientific theories. The indispensability argument has come under serious scrutiny in recent times, with many influential philosophers unconvinced of its cogency. This book outlines the indispensability argument in considerable detail, before defending it against various challenges. Although the focus is squarely on the indispensability argument, in order to appreciate the argument's full force, it is necessary to consider many other interesting and related topics. These include questions about ontological commitments and the applications of mathematics to physical theories. Of particular interest here is the Quinean backdrop from which the indispensability argument emerges. This backdrop consists of the doctrines of holism and naturalism. The latter is crucial to the whole indispensability debate, so a considerable portion of this work is spent discussing naturalism.

Abstract"Offsetting" habitat destruction has widespread appeal as an instrument for balancing economic growth with biodiversity conservation. Requiring proponents to pay the nontrivial costs of habitat loss encourages sensitive planning approaches. Offsetting, biobanking, and biodiverse carbon sequestration schemes will play an important role in conserving biodiversity under increasing human pressures. However, untenable assumptions in existing schemes are undermining their benefits. Policies that allow habitat destruction to be offset by the protection of existing habitat are guaranteed to result in further loss of biodiversity. Similarly, schemes that allow trading the immediate loss of existing habitat for restoration projects that promise future habitat will, at best, result in time lags in the availability of habitat that increases extinction risks, or at worst, fail to achieve the offset at all. We detail concerns about existing approaches and describe how offsetting and trading policies can be improved to provide genuine benefits for biodiversity. Due to uncertainties about the way in which restored vegetation matures, we propose that the biodiversity bank should be a savings bank. Accrued biodiversity values should be demonstrated before they can be used to offset biodiversity losses. We provide recommendations about how this could be achieved in practice.

Policy-makers and managers in natural resource management (NRM) often complain that researchers are out of touch. Researchers often complain that policy-makers and managers make poorly informed decisions. In this article, we report on a meeting between researchers, policy-makers and managers convened to identify practical solutions to improve engagement between these camps. A necessary starting point is that every researcher and policy-maker should understand, and tap into, the motivations and reward systems of the other when seeking engagement. For example, researchers can be motivated to engage in policy development if there is a promise of outputs that align with their reward systems such as co-authored publications. Successful research-policy partnerships are built around personal relationships. As a researcher, you cannot therefore expect your results to inform policy by only publishing in journals. As a policy-maker, you cannot guarantee engagement from researchers by publicly inviting comment on a document. Actively building and maintaining relationships with key individuals through discussions, meetings, workshops or field days will increase the likelihood that research outcomes will inform policy decisions. We identified secondments, sabbaticals, fellowships and 'buddies', an annual national NRM conference and 'contact mapping' (a Facebook-type network) as forums that can catalyse new relationships between researchers and policy-makers. We challenge every researcher, policy-maker and manager in NRM to build one new cross-cultural relationship each year.