Uncertainty and sensitivity analysis of normalization factors to methodological assumptions

Normalisation factors are calculated as results of regional/global inventories of emission and resources characterised trough impact assessment methods. Several methodological assumptions are needed for building the inventory. Sala et al 2015 presented a set of normalisation factors for the EU 2010 defining a methodological approach for sources selection and for building proxy indicators. Qualitative and quantitative uncertainty evaluation is needed for assessing the robustness of final figures. Five sources of uncertainty have been analysed in this work: (F1) the selection of the sources of data; (F2) the classification of data as life cycle inventory (LCI) elementary flows; (F3) the classification of substances for characterization; (F4) the specification of the emission compartments; and (F5) the use of spatially differentiated characterization factors. The sensitivity of the normalization factors to such uncertainties were assessed through a global sensitivity method, for the impact categories acidification (ACID), terrestrial eutrophication (ET), marine eutrophication (EM), photochemical ozone formation (POF), respiratory inorganics/particulate matter (RIPM) and water depletion (WD).The uncertainty associated with the methodological choices made for calculating normalization factors (Sala et al 2015) was assessed. Generally the value calculated by Sala et al (2015) compare well against average and median values estimated in this analysis for ACID, ET, EM and POF. Instead, the impact categories RIPM and WD show different patterns, for the former, although the average value is very similar, the median value is far lower than the normalization factor reported by Sala et al. (2015). For what concerns WD, the median value is much higher. Future improvements of the normalization factors should therefore prioritize the development of more detailed inventories of emissions by including: higher substance resolution, height of emission as well as the use of spatially differentiated characterization factors. The authors recommend that the normalization factors from Sala et al. (2015) are applied together with two additional sets of normalization factors i.e. the 'median values' and the set of 'average + standard deviation' values, so to better capture their uncertainty. Similarly, the interpretation of the results should build on the qualitative estimates of robustness provided by Sala et al. (2015).JRC.H.8 - Sustainability Assessmen

Learning from the South: common challenges and solutions for small-scale farming

Small-scale farmers all over the world face a number of common biophysical and socio-economic challenges. In this paper we draw on data from a workshop held in the UK in 2005, to assess whether experiences in addressing these challenges, as gained in the global south, may be used to inform solutions to similar challenges in the UK. In doing so, we contribute to a growing body of literature that seeks to challenge predominantly north-south flows of knowledge and resources. We first identify specific common challenges faced by small-scale farmers in the global north and south. We then compare the different solutions used to address these problems in the north and south, drawing on the first hand experiences of the academics, small-scale farmers, NGO staff and policymakers who participated in the workshop. Next, we examine the transferability of solutions between locations, elucidating the conditions that support and hinder such transfers. Finally, we evaluate the potential for a workshop approach to act as a ‘learning space’, in which the sharing of experiences can foster learning for participants and lead to new, creative ways of thinking about the process-based challenges faced by small-scale farmers

Rethinking the interface between ecology and society. The case of the cockle controversy in the Dutch Wadden Sea

1. Applied ecology, like conservation research, may deal with societal issues if its scientifically based interventions have societal consequences. Human utilization plays a significant role in many ecosystems, so conservation ecologists often have to act on the interface between science and society, where controversies may arise. 2. Using insights from science and technology studies, we have analysed the 15-year controversy on the ecological effects of cockle fishing in the Dutch Wadden Sea, which began around 1990 and involved nature protection and shellfish organizations, as well as several leading Dutch ecologists, in a heated debate. 3. During this controversy, evaluative research on the ecological effects of cockle fishing was undertaken by a consortium of institutes in order to contribute to the process of political decision-making by the Dutch government on cockle fishery in this area. In addition to conservational and commercial interests, ecological research itself became part of the controversy. 4. The research projects on the effects of cockle fishing during this controversy are examples of societally contextualized science, implying that interests and societal disputes are intertwined with scientific arguments. We have applied a dynamic model of contextualization in which societal stakes and scientific uncertainty are considered as the main factors determining the different contexts in which conservation research functions. 5. Synthesis and applications. Conservation research, whether it is fundamental or managerially orientated, is related to greater societal aims and interests and might easily face more or less complex societally contextualized situations. Such situations imply extended responsibilities for scientists. Not only is there a need for sound science, but also for a sound way of interacting and communicating with the societal environment. Some elements of such a notion of extended accountability are presented

The sociology of expertise: the distribution of social fluency

Expert knowledge is an essential component of modern society. It is also a potentially difficult topic for sociology because of the importance sociology attaches to culture and context. The sociology of science has emphasised the continuity between scientific expertise and more traditional forms of knowledge. Whilst this suggests an increasing ‘democratisation of expertise’ is desirable, it also risks erasing the idea of expertise itself. This might be particularly detrimental for sociology as it restricts the role of sociological inquiry to examining how expert status is attributed rather than understanding what expertise is. This paper describes these developments and contrasts them with other approaches in which expertise appears less important. It concludes by setting out a new approach to expertise that respects the role of culture in generating knowledge but, by stressing the importance of socialisation and experience, argues for a more nuanced conception of expertise as both real and unequally distributed