Methods to cope with scientific uncertainty in environmental decision-making – how to give sound and infl uential ecological advice?
Abstract
It is a wide known phenomenon in conservation biology that ecological advice is prone to bias in environmental decision making process. The persistent presence of scientific uncertainty is held as a primary reason for the insufficient influence of ecological inputs given by experts to stakeholders. Numerous methods are addressed in literature for identifying and reducing the level of uncertainty in terms of the ecological advices given to stakeholders. The present article presents some of the best practices on the basis of reviewing the respective scientific literature.
References
Bándi, Gy. (2006). Környezetjog. Osiris, Budapest.
Birnie, P., Boyle, A. & Redgewell, C. (2009): International Law & the Environment. Oxford, University Press
Collins, M. L. (2013): Security of the person, peace of mind: a precautionary approach to environmental uncertainty. – Journal of Human Rights and the Environment 4: 79–100.
Doremus, H. (1997). Listing decisions under the Endangered Species Act: Why better science isn’t always better policy? – Washington University Law Quarterly 75: 1029–1152.
De Marchi, B. & Ravetz, J. R. (1999): Risk management and governance: a post-normal science approach. – Futures 31: 743–757.
Ellison, A. M. (2004): Bayesian inference in ecology. – Ecology Letters 7: 509–520.
Giddens, A. (2009): The Politics of Climate Change. Cambridge, Polity Press
Gosselin, F. (2009): Management on the basis of the best scientific data or integration of ecological research within management? Lessons learned from the Northern spotted owl saga on the connection between research and management in conservation biology. – Biodiversity Conservation 18: 777–793.
Hanssen, L., Rouwette, E. & van Katwijk, M. M. (2009): The Role of Ecological Science in Environmental Policy Making: from a Pacifi cation toward a Facilitation Strategy. Ecology and Society 14: 43
Harwood, J. & Stokes, K. (2003): Coping with uncertainty in ecological advice: lessons from fisheries. – TRENDS in Ecology and Evolution 18: 617–622.
Linkov, I., Satterstrom, F. K., Kiker, G., Batchelor, C., Bridges, T. & Ferguson, E. (2006): From comparative risk assessment to multi-criteria decision analysis and adaptive management: recent developments and applications. – Environment International 32: 1072–1093.
Lélé S. & Norgaard R. B. (1996): Sustainability and the scientist’s burden. – Conservation Biology 10: 354–365.
Ludwig, D. E., Mangel, M. & Haddad, B. (2001): Ecology, Conservation, and Public Policy. – Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 32: 481–517.
Opdam, P. F. M., Broekmeyer, M. E. A. & Kistenkas, F. H. (2009): Identifying uncertainties in judging the significance of human impacts on Natura 2000 sites. – Environmental Science & Policy 12: 912–921.
Regan, H. M., Colyvan, M. & Burgman, M. A. (2002): A Taxonomy and Treatment of Uncertainty for Ecology and Conservation Biology. – Ecological Applications 12: 618–628.
Sachs, N. M. (2011): Rescuing the Strong Precautionary Principle form its Critics. – University of Illinois Law Review 1292–1293.
Schultz, C. (2008): Responding to scientific uncertainty in U.S. forest policy. – Environmental Science & Policy 11: 253–271.
Sigel, K., Klauer, B. & Pahl-Wostl, C. (2010): Conceptualizing uncertainty in environmental decision-making: The example of the EU water framework directive. – Ecological Economics 69: 502–510.
Sutherland, W. J., Pullin, A. S., Dolman, P. M. & Knight, T. M. (2004): The need for evidence-basedconservation. – TRENDS in Ecology and Evolution 19: 305–308.
Wam, H. K. (2010): Economists, time to team up with ecologists! – Ecological Economics 69: 675–679.
