Advertisement

Environmental Policy: The Current Paradigm

  • Cynthia H. Stahl
  • Alan J. Cimorelli
Chapter
Part of the Risk, Systems and Decisions book series (RSD)

Abstract

Written for public policy practitioners and interested public policy stakeholders, this is a book about the challenges of public policy decision making that are not being met by current approaches. Applying the principles and lessons learned from the literature on decision analytic methods, stakeholder participation approaches, and public policy making, an innovative but feasible methodology for environmental decision and public policy making is unveiled. The Multi-criteria Integrated Resource Assessment (MIRA) approach provides a policy decision analytic interface between the social and physical sciences that was previously unavailable. Stakeholder inclusiveness, transparency, learning, scientific data usage, the construction of social and scientific indicators, and addressing uncertainty are overlaid across the common set of steps that are used in all multi-criteria decision making. This book challenges the current science-based decision making paradigm that the rational and objective application of scientific data alone constitutes the ideal decision making process. Effective environmental policy making requires meeting stakeholder goals by balancing science and values. This book examines current policy decision making processes and presents some dilemmas that can impede finding policy solutions. Proceeding from the conceptual to the practical, this book includes a final word on the policy implications of viewing commonly used indices through the MIRA lens.

Keywords

Public policy process Decision making Environmental management Stakeholder involvement Uncertainty analysis 

References

  1. 1.
    Committee on Human Factors Commission on Behavioral Social Sciences Education, National Research Council (1983) Research needs for human factors. National Academy Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Fischhoff B, Harvey J (1981) No man is a discipline. In: Cognition, social behavior, and the environment. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, pp 579–583Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Carson R (1962) Silent spring. Houghton Mifflin Company, BostonGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    National Pesticide Information Center (2000) DDT: technical fact sheet. NPIC. http://npic.orst.edu/factsheets/ddtgen.pdf. Accessed 11/23/18
  5. 5.
    Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2002) Public health statement: DDT, DDE, and DDD. ATSDR. https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/phs/phs.asp?id=79&tid=20. Accessed 11/23/18
  6. 6.
    Ruckelshaus WD (1972) Consolidated DDT hearings: opinion and order of the administrator. Fed Regist 37(131):13369–13376Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    State of Hawaii DoH, Disease Outbreak Control Division (2018) Disease types. State of Hawaii, Department of Health. https://health.hawaii.gov/docd/disease-types/mosquito-transmitted/. Accessed 5/27/2019
  8. 8.
    Malkin M, Fumento M (1996) Rachel’s Folly: the end of chlorine. Competitive Enterprise Institute. http://cei.org/sites/default/files/Michael%20Fumento%20-%20Rachel's%20Folly%20The%20End%20of%20Chlorine.pdf. Accessed 11/23/18
  9. 9.
    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2016) Zika virus: 2016 case counts in the US. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. https://www.cdc.gov/zika/reporting/2016-case-counts.html. Accessed 8/6/2018
  10. 10.
    CBS News (2016) CDC struggling to wipe out mosquito carrying Zika virus. CBS Interactive, Inc.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    National Pesticide Information Center (2016) Pyriproxyfen: General Factsheet. NPIC. http://npic.orst.edu/factsheets/pyriprogen.pdf. Accessed 11/23/18
  12. 12.
    National Pesticide Information Center (2018) Pesticides used in mosquito control. http://npic.orst.edu/pest/mosquito/mosqcides.html. Accessed 11/23/18
  13. 13.
    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2011) Naled technical: product registration notification. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census (1969) Consumer reports: household income in 1968 and selected social and economic characteristics of households, vol 65. U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Wojdyla B (2011) The top automotive engineering failures: the Ford Pinto fuel tanks. In: Popular mechanics. Hearst Communications Inc., New YorkGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Woodham C (2008) Eastern state penitentiary: a prison with a past. SmithsonianGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Manion J (2015) Liberty’s prisoners: Carceral culture in early America. University of Pennsylvania Press, PhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Melamed S (2018) Why is 1 in 10 Philly inmates still confined ‘in the hole’? Philadelphia Inquirer, 5/17/2018Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Feeding America (2014) Hunger in America 2014, national report. Feeding America, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    National Foundation to End Senior Hunger (2018) What a waste. Paraclete Multimedia. http://nfesh.org/. Accessed 11/23/2018
  21. 21.
    U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service (2018) Food security in the U.S. USDA. https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/food-nutrition-assistance/food-security-in-the-us/. Accessed 11/23/2018
  22. 22.
    Feeding America (2017) 2017 feeding America annual report: a hunger for a brighter tomorrow. Feeding America, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Saltelli A, Funtowicz SO (2017) What is science’s crisis really about? Futures 91:5–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Saltelli A, Giampietro M (2017) What is wrong with evidence based policy, and how can it be improved? Futures 91:62–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Bremer S (2017) Have we given up too much? On yielding climate representation to experts. Futures 91:3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ravetz JR (2005) The no-nonsense guide to science. No-nonsense guide. New International Publications, Ltd., Oxford, UKGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Sarewitz D (2015) Science can’t solve it. Nature 522:413–415CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Moermond CTA, Janssen MPM, de Knect JA, Montforts MHMM, Peijnenburg WJGM, Zweers PGPC, Sijm DTHM (2011) PBT assessment using the revised annex XIII of REACH – a comparison with other regulatory frameworks. Integr Environ Assess Manag 8(2):359–371.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ieam.1248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Maynard Smith J (1982) Evolution and the theory of games. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    von Neumann J, Morgenstern O (1944) Theory of games and economic behavior. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Bunn DW (1984) Applied decision analysis, McGraw-Hill series in quantitative methods for management. McGraw-Hill Book Company, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Keeney RL (1981) Analysis of preference dependencies among objectives. Oper Res 23(6):1105–1120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Binder CR, Feola G, Steinberger JK (2010) Considering the normative, systemic and procedural dimensions in indicator-based sustainability assessments in agriculture. Environ Impact Assess Rev 30:71–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Matthies M, Giupponi C, Ostendorf B (2007) Environmental decision support systems: current issues, methods and tools. Environ Model Softw 22(2):123–127.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2005.09.005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Elsawah S, Guillaume JHA, Filatova T, Rook J, Jakeman AJ (2015) A methodology for eliciting, representing, and analysing stakeholder knowledge for decision making on complex socio-ecological systems: from cognitive maps to agent-based models. J Environ Manag 151:500–516.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2014.11.028CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Rouse WB, Morris NM (1986) On looking into the black box: prospects and limits in the search for mental models. Psychol Bull 100(1):349–363CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Merkhofer MW, Keeney RL (1987) A multiattribute utility analysis of alternative sites for the disposal of nuclear waste. Risk Anal 7(2):173–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Keeney RL (1992) Value-focused thinking: a path to creative decision making. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Fischhoff B, Sternberg RJ, Smith EE (2003) Judgment and decision making. In: The psychology of human thought. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp 153–187Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Kleinmuntz B (1990) Why we still use our heads instead of formulas: toward an integrative approach. Psychol Bull 107(3):296–310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Jasanoff S (1990) The fifth branch: science advisors as policymakers. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Harremoes P, Gee D, MacGarvin M, Stirling A, Keys J, Wynne B, Vaz SG (2001) Twelve late lessons. In: Late lessons from early warning: the precautionary principle 1896-2000. European Environment Agency, Copenhagen, pp 168–194Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Funtowicz SO, Ravetz JR (1993) Science for the post-normal age. Futures 25:739–755CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Merkhofer MW, Covello VT, Mumpower J, Spicker SF (1987) Criticisms and limitations of decision-aiding approaches. In: Covello VT, Mumpower J, Spicker SF (eds) Decision science and social risk management, Technology, risk and society: an international series in risk analysis. D. Reidel Publishing Company, Dordrecht, pp 142–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Jeong B, Oguz E, Wang H, Zhou P (2018) Multi-criteria decision-making for marine propulsion: hybrid, diesel electric and diesel mechanical systems from cost-environment-risk perspectives. Applied Energy 230:1065–1081.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2018.09.074CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Carli R, Dotoli M, Pellegrino R (2018) Multi-criteria decision-making for sustainable metropolitan cities assessment. Journal of Environmental Management 226:46–61.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.07.075CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Green AW, Correll MD, George TL, Davidson I, Gallagher S, West C, Lopata A, Casey D, Ellison K, Pavlacky DC, Quattrini L, Shaw AE, Strasser EH, VerCauteren T, Panjabi AO (2018) Using structured decision making to prioritize species assemblages for conservation. Journal for Nature Conservation 45:48–57.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnc.2018.08.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Manupati VK, Ramkumar M, Samanta D (2018) A multi-criteria decision making approach for the urban renewal in Southern India. Sustainable Cities and Society 42:471–481.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2018.08.011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2018) Recovery potential screening: the RPS methodology: comparing watersheds, evaluating options. https://www.epa.gov/rps/rps-methodology-comparing-watersheds-evaluating-options. Accessed 11/23/18
  50. 50.
    Ison R, Collins K (2008) Public policy that does the right thing rather than the wrong thing righter. Australia National University, CanberraGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Bond A, Morrison-Saunders A, Gunn JAE, Pope J, Retief F (2015) Managing uncertainty, ambiguity and ignorance in impact assessment by embedding evolutionary resilience, participatory modelling and adaptive management. J Environ Manag 151:97–104.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2014.12.030CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    deLeon P, Steelman TA (2001) Making public policy programs effective and relevant: the role of the policy sciences. J Policy Anal Manage 20(1):163–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Glover SM, Prawitt DF, Spilker BC (1995) Decision aids and user behavior: implications for inappropriate reliance and knowledge acquisition. http://www.usc.edu/dept/accounting/midyraud/glover.html
  54. 54.
    Saaty TL (1980) The analytic hierarchy process: planning, priority setting, resource allocation. McGraw Hill International Book Co., New YorkGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2019) Guidelines for Human Exposure Assessment (EPA/100/B-19/001), Chapter 8 Uncertainty and Variability. Washington, DC. Risk Assessment Forum, US EPA.Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Sarewitz D (2004) How science makes environmental controversies worse. Environ Sci Pol 7:385–403CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Lackey R (2007) Science, scientists, and policy advocacy. Conserv Biol 21(1):12–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Cynthia H. Stahl
    • 1
  • Alan J. Cimorelli
    • 2
  1. 1.US EPAPhiladelphiaUSA
  2. 2.US EPA (retired)PhiladelphiaUSA

Personalised recommendations