Some pitfalls of an overemphasis on science in environmental risk management decisions

被引:37
作者
Gregory, Robin
Failing, Lee
Ohlson, Dan
Mcdaniels, Timothy L.
机构
[1] Decis Res, Galiano, BC V0N 1P0, Canada
[2] Compass Resource Management, Vancouver, BC, Canada
[3] Univ British Columbia, Vancouver, BC V5Z 1M9, Canada
基金
美国国家科学基金会; 美国安德鲁·梅隆基金会;
关键词
science; risk management; decisions; environmental policy;
D O I
10.1080/13669870600799895
中图分类号
C [社会科学总论];
学科分类号
03 ; 0303 ;
摘要
This paper addresses the question whether calls for "more'' and "better'' science will have the intended effect of improving the quality of decisions about environmental risks. There are reasons to be skeptical: key judgment tasks that fundamentally shape many aspects of decisions about environmental risk management lie outside the domain of science. These tasks include making value judgments explicit, integrating facts and values to create innovative alternatives, and constructively addressing conflicts about uncertainty. To bring new specificity to an old debate, we highlight six pitfalls in environmental risk decisions that can occur as the result of an overemphasis on science as the basis for management choices.
引用
收藏
页码:717 / 735
页数:19
相关论文
共 50 条
[1]  
[Anonymous], 2000, RISK CHAR HDB
[2]  
Babich Adam, 2003, COLUM J ENV L, V28, P119
[3]   Environmental risk assessment and the intrusion of bias [J].
Ball, DJ .
ENVIRONMENT INTERNATIONAL, 2002, 28 (06) :529-544
[4]  
Bazerman M., 2006, JUDGMENT MANAGERIAL
[5]  
Berkes F., 2018, SACRED ECOLOGY
[6]   Shifting sands: The limits of science in setting risk standards [J].
Coglianese, C ;
Marchant, GE .
UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA LAW REVIEW, 2004, 152 (04) :1255-1360
[7]  
Dawes RM., 1988, RATIONAL CHOICE UNCE
[8]   Ten common mistakes in designing biodiversity indicators for forest policy [J].
Failing, L ;
Gregory, R .
JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT, 2003, 68 (02) :121-132
[9]  
Failing L, 2004, ECOL SOC, V9
[10]  
FAILING L, 2006, UNPUB INTEGRATING KN