Conceptualising uncertainty in environmental decision-making: The example of the EU Water Framework Directive

The question of how to deal with uncertainty in environmental decision-making is cur-rently attracting considerable attention on the part of scientists as well as of politicians and those involved in government administration. The existence of uncertainty becomes particularly apparent in the field of environmental policy because environmental prob-lems are regarded as highly complex and long-term and because far-reaching changes have to be taken into account; moreover, the knowledge available to practitioners and policy makers alike is often fragmentary and not systemised. One key issue arising from this is the challenge to develop scientific decision support methods that are capable of dealing with uncertainty in a systematic and differentiated way, integrating scientific and practical knowledge. This paper introduces a conceptual framework for perceiving and describing uncertainty in environmental decision-making. It is argued that perceiv-ing and describing uncertainty is an important prerequisite for deciding and acting under uncertainty. The conceptual framework consists of a general definition of uncertainty along with five complementary perspectives on the phenomenon, each highlighting one specific aspect of it. By using the conceptual framework, decision-makers are able to re-flect on their knowledge base with regard to its completeness and reliability and to gain a broad picture of uncertainty from various standpoints. The theoretical ideas presented here are based on two empirical studies looking at how uncertainty is dealt with in the implementation process of the EU Water Framework Directive (WFD). The rather ab-stract differentiations are illustrated by a number of examples in the form of interview statements and excerpts from the WFD and the WFD guidance documents Impress, Wateco und Proclan. --uncertainty,probability,lack of knowledge,pure ignorance,environ-mental decision-making,EU Water Framework Directive (WFD)

Sustainability Learning in Natural Resource Use and Management

Premi a l'excel·lència investigadora. Àmbit de les Ciències Socials. 2008We contribute to the normative discussion on sustainability learning and provide a theoretical integrative framework intended to underlie the main components and interrelations of what learning is required for social learning to become sustainability learning. We demonstrate how this framework has been operationalized in a participatory modeling interface to support processes of natural resource integrated assessment and management. The key modeling components of our view are: structure (S), energy and resources (E), information and knowledge (I), social-ecological change (C), and the size, thresholds, and connections of different social-ecological systems. Our approach attempts to overcome many of the cultural dualisms that exist in the way social and ecological systems are perceived and affect many of the most common definitions of sustainability. Our approach also emphasizes the issue of limits within a total socialecological system and takes a multiscale, agent-based perspective. Sustainability learning is different from social learning insofar as not all of the outcomes of social learning processes necessarily improve what we consider as essential for the long-term sustainability of social-ecological systems, namely, the co-adaptive systemic capacity of agents to anticipate and deal with the unintended, undesired, and irreversible negative effects of development. Hence, the main difference of sustainability learning from social learning is the content of what is learned and the criteria used to assess such content; these are necessarily related to increasing the capacity of agents to manage, in an integrative and organic way, the total social-ecological system of which they form a part. The concept of sustainability learning and the SEIC social-ecological framework can be useful to assess and communicate the effectiveness of multiple agents to halt or reverse the destructive trends affecting the life-support systems upon which all humans depend.Synthesis, part of a Special Feature on Social Learning in Water Resources Managemen

An agent-based model of consensus building

Our model, CollAct is built around the question how people gain a shared understanding and reach consensus in an interactive group setting. This is an important question which is rather difficult to analyze within case studies. We model agents in a cognitive way, including substantive and relational knowledge in mental models, which may change through learning. The agents in CollAct discuss with each other and produce a group model (consensus). Factors identified to have an important influence on the results of a group discussion include group size, the level of controversy within the discussion, cognitive diversity, social behavior in form of cognitive biases (Asch and halo effect), and, depending on group size, the existence of a leading role at the beginning. Furthermore, the integration of topics into the consensus follows a saturation curve, thus the ending time of discussions should be carefully chosen to avoid a loss of information

The Growing Importance of Social Learning in Water Resources Management and Sustainability Science

The perceptions of what is required for sustainable water resources management and sustainability science in general have undergone major changes over the past decade. Initially, water resources management followed an instrumental “prediction and control” approach, dominated by technical end-of-pipe solutions. Pollution control, for example, relied primarily on waste water treatment instead of source control, and flood management was based on dykes and reservoirs rather than non-structural measures such as land-use zoning. This approach has yielded important results, but it came at a price. In many places, the natural dynamics of the river environment have been destroyed. Moreover, this approach no longer works very well. It cannot adequately deal with the growing uncertainties, increasing rates of change, different stakeholder perspectives, and growing interdependence that are characteristic for today’s resource management issues. What we need then is a new understanding of sustainable water resource management as a societal search and learning process (e.g., Pahl-Wostl 2002, Wals 2007)

Soziales Lernen für den Klimawandel

Anpassungen an den Klimawandel werden politische und wirtschaftliche Interessen fordern. Beispiele aus der Wasserwirtschaft geben scheinbar unüberwindlichen Interessenskonflikten über Soziales Lernen eine neue Perspektive

Computermodelle in der Gewässerbewirtschaftung

Es wird zunehmend wichtiger, die komplexen Zusammenhänge im Umgang mit Gewässerressourcen adäquat zu berücksichtigen. Computergestützte Modelle könnten hier eine zentrale Rolle spielen. Doch die Anwendung in der Praxis ist durch die unterschiedlichen Perspektiven und Interessen von Forschung und Wasserwirtschaft oft schwierig

Communication, trust and leadership in co-managing biodiversity:A network analysis to understand social drivers shaping a common narrative

Environmental co-management has been advocated and applied in diverse contexts as an integrative and inclusive approach to make biodiversity conservation more effective and contextual. Co-management however requires the actors involved to overcome tacit boundaries and reconcile different viewpoints to reach a shared understanding on the environmental problem and envisioned solution(s). We depart from the assumption that a common narrative can serve as a base for a shared understanding and analyze what types of actor relations in co-management influence the emergence of a common narrative. Empirical data is collected using a mixed-method case study design. We apply the idea of narrative congruence, which relates to the similarity of narrations that actors tell, to investigate the effects of the types of relationships between two actors as well as specific leadership roles using an Exponential Random Graph Model. We find that frequent interaction between two actors and a trusted leader with many reciprocal trust ties to be important drivers to support the emergence of narrative congruence ties. Connecting leaders, i.e. actors in brokering positions, show a statistically significant negative correlation with narrative congruence ties. The results suggest that a common narrative tends to emerge in sub-groups around a highly trusted leader, in which actors talk frequently to each other. A brokering leader, however, seems to face strong difficulties of forming narrative congruence ties with others, although such brokers may play central roles in the co-design of common narratives to form the basis for motivating collective action in co-management. Lastly, we discuss the importance of common narratives and how leaders can better succeed in co-designing these in environmental co-management approaches.</p

The logics and politics of environmental flows - A review

Environmental flows (or Eflows) refer to water that is allocated to the environment through the deliberate release of stored water or planned allocations. Since the late 20th century, Eflows have become increasingly influential in water policy. Over several decades, the research, policy and practice of Eflows has broadened from addressing flow requirements of specific river reaches or the needs of significant species such as salmon, to a broader focus on integrated strategies that aim to sustain rivers’ diverse values. Eflow research has generated an extensive literature that is focused on the scientific and sociopolitical dimensions of managing river flows. We examine this literature critically, tracing the development, application and expansion of Eflows and exploring the shifting norms, framings and assumptions that underpin their theory and practice, including contestations about policy decisions. Our analysis indicates that the politics of environmental flows refracts socially constructed and contested views about nature and river systems and raises fundamental questions about how decisions are made and who decides. While there is a tendency to try to depoliticise Eflows by rendering decisions technical, we argue that, like all water allocation decisions and all water science, Eflows involve sociopolitical contestations about the control of rivers. These contestations are fundamentally about who has the power to make decisions on allocating water and what beliefs, worldviews and frameworks guide these decisions. We conclude that recognising the value-laden character of Eflows research and practice is an essential step towards recognising the value-laden character of river science and management. To achieve more equitable negotiations on deciding how rivers are managed, we argue for an explicit recognition of the political dimensions of Eflows, including a greater awareness of the cultural and ontological politics involved