A step-wise process of decision-making under uncertainty when implementing environmental policy

Knights, Antony M.; Culhane, Fiona; Hussain, Salman; Papadopoulou, Nadia; Piet, G.J.; Raakær, J.; Rogers, Stuart I.; Robinson, Leonie A.

doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2014.02.010

Cited by 47 publications

(34 citation statements)

References 39 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These include decision theory and scenario-planning (reviewed by Polasky et al 2011;Grechi et al 2014;Knights et al 2014), as well as the approaches proposed within the realms of post-normal science (Ravetz 2004;Francis and Goodman 2010).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Towards a different attitude to uncertainty

Pe’er¹,

Mihoub²,

Dislich³

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The ecological literature deals with uncertainty primarily from the perspective of how to reduce it to acceptable levels. However, the current rapid and ubiquitous environmental changes, as well as anticipated rates of change, pose novel conditions and complex dynamics due to which many sources of uncertainty are difficult or even impossible to reduce. These include both uncertainty in knowledge (epistemic uncertainty) and societal responses to it. Under these conditions, an increasing number of studies ask how one can deal with uncertainty as it is. Here, we explore the question how to adopt an overall alternative attitude to uncertainty, which accepts or even embraces it. First, we show that seeking to reduce uncertainty may be counterproductive under some circumstances. It may yield overconfidence, ignoring early warning signs, policy-and societal stagnation, or irresponsible behaviour if personal certainty is offered by externalization of environmental costs. We then demonstrate that uncertainty can have positive impacts by driving improvements in knowledge, promoting cautious action, contributing to keeping societies flexible and adaptable, enhancing awareness, support and involvement of the public in nature conservation, and enhancing cooperation and communication. We discuss the risks of employing a certainty paradigm on uncertain knowledge, the potential benefits of adopting an alternative attitude to uncertainty, and the need to implement such an attitude across scales -from adaptive management at the local scale, to the evolving Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) at the global level.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Towards a different attitude to uncertainty

Pe’er¹,

Mihoub²,

Dislich³

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This means that, for some descriptors at least, there is a large scientific uncertainty associated with the definition of environmental targets and GEnS. Uncertainties in target setting, in the performance of an action (e.g., ecosystem state post-management) or in the contribution of individual driver(s) causing state change can undermine decision making when implementing environmental policy and can limit our ability to identify what should be managed, and what the impact of management might be (Knights et al, 2014). Consequently, developing a consistent assessment framework for all descriptors and indicators is an extremely challenging task, and using the OOAO approach is not appropriate.…”

Section: One-out All-out (Ooao)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Tales from a thousand and one ways to integrate marine ecosystem components when assessing the environmental status

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Assessing the environmental status of marine ecosystems is useful when communicating key messages to policymakers or the society, reducing the complex information of the multiple ecosystem and biodiversity components and their important spatial and temporal variability into manageable units. Taking into account the ecosystem components to be addressed (e.g., biological, chemical, physical), the numerous biodiversity elements to be assessed (e.g., from microbes to sea mammals), the different indicators needed to be studied (e.g., in Europe, 56 indicators of status have been selected), and the different assessment scales to be undertaken (e.g., from local to regional sea scale), some criteria to define spatial scales and some guidance on aggregating and integrating information is needed. We have reviewed, from ecological and management perspectives, the approaches for aggregating and integrating currently available for marine status assessment in Europe and other regions of the world. Advantages and shortcomings of the different alternatives are highlighted. We provide some guidance on the steps toward defining rules for aggregation and integration of information at multiple levels of ecosystem organization, providing recommendations on when using specific rules in the assessment. A main conclusion is that any integration principle used should be ecologically-relevant, transparent and well documented, in order to make it comparable across different geographic regions.

show abstract

“…Conflict is minimised by way of 'partnership action' to integrate different policy and management actions. This approach is successful due to ''buy-in'' by stakeholders, the use of appropriate information to underpin decisions, the inclusion of advisory bodies (including the Port of Plymouth Marine Liaison Committee and Wembury Voluntary Marine Conservation Area Advisory Group) and other stakeholders in the decision-making process, and transparent actions (Knights et al, 2014).…”

Section: Users and Management Of Plymouth Sound And Its Estuariesmentioning

confidence: 99%