Advertisement

Risk and Uncertainty in Environmental Management

  • Peter J. BalintEmail author
  • Ronald E. Stewart
  • Anand Desai
  • Lawrence C. Walters
Chapter
  • 3k Downloads

Abstract

When it comes to environmental conflict, what makes some decisions more difficult than others? For example, the state of California routinely experiences thousands of wildfires each year, hundreds of which are the natural result of lightning strikes. If these naturally occurring phenomena are so common, what makes decisions related to the management of these situations so challenging?

Keywords

Decision Maker Risk Perception Wicked Problem Scientific Uncertainty Unmet Expectation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Allen, G. M., and E. J. Gould Jr. 1986. “Complexity, Wickedness, and Public Forests.”Journal of Forestry 84 (4): 20–23.Google Scholar
  2. Bardach, E. 1996. The Eight-Step Path of Policy Analysis: A Handbook for Practice. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Academic Press.Google Scholar
  3. Breyer, S. 1993. Breaking the Vicious Circle: Toward Effective Risk Regulation. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Brown, P. 1992. “Popular Epidemiology and Toxic Waste Contamination: Lay and Professional Ways of Knowing.” Journal of Health and Social Behavior 33: 267–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Burns, T. R., and T. Dietz. 1992. “Technology, Sociotechnical Systems, Technological Development: An Evolutionary Perspective.” In New Technology at the Outset: Social Forces in the Shaping of Technological Innovation, edited by M. Dierkes and U. Hoffman. Frankfurt: Campus Verlag.Google Scholar
  6. Checkland, P. B., and J. Poulter. 2006. Learning for Action: A Short Definitive Account of Soft Systems Methodology and Its Use for Practitioners, Teachers and Students. Chichester, UK: Wiley.Google Scholar
  7. Churchman, C. W. 1967. “Wicked Problems.” Management Science 14 (4): B141–B142.Google Scholar
  8. Cohen, B. L. 1987. “Reducing the Hazards of Nuclear Power: Insanity in Action.”Physics and Society 16: 2–4.Google Scholar
  9. Combs, B., and P. Slovic. 1979. “Newspaper Coverage of Causes of Death.” Journalism Quarterly 56: 837–43, 849.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Conklin, E. J. 2006. Dialogue Mapping: Building Shared Understanding of Wicked Problems. Chichester, UK: Wiley.Google Scholar
  11. Daly, H. E. 1993. “The Steady-state Economy: Toward a Political Economy of Biophysical Equilibrium and Moral Growth.” In Valuing the Earth: Economics, Ecology, Ethics, edited by H. E. Daly and K. N. Townsend. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  12. Dietz, T. 1987. “Theory and Method in Social Impact Assessment.” Sociological Inquiry 57: 54–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dietz, T., S. Frey, and E. Rosa. 2001. “Risk Assessment and Management.” In The Environment and Society Reader, edited by S. Frey, 272–99. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
  14. Dietz, T., P. Stern, and R. W. Rycroft. 1989. “Definitions of Conflict and the Legitimation of Resources: The Case of Environmental Risk.” Sociological Forum (4): 47–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Douglas, M. 1985. Risk Acceptability According to the Social Sciences. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
  16. Dunn, W. N. 1994. Public Policy Analysis: An Introduction, 2nd ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  17. Fischhoff, B. 1990. “Psychology and Public Policy: Tool or Tool Maker?” American Psychologist 45: 647–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fisher, A., and Y. Chen. 1996. “Customer Perceptions of Agency Risk Communication.” Risk Analysis 16 (2): 177–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fone, M., and P. C. Young. 2000. Public Sector Risk Management. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.Google Scholar
  20. Freudenburg, W. R. 1988. “Perceived Risk, Real Risk: Social Science and the Art of Probabilistic Risk Assessment.” Science 242: 44–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Giddens, A. 1990. The Consequences of Modernity. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Grin, J., and R. Hoppe. 2000. “Cultural Bias and Framing Wicked Problems.” In Government Institutions: Effects, Changes and Normative Foundations, edited by H. Wagenaar. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  23. Hammond, John S., Ralph L. Keeney, and Howard Raiffa. 1999. Smart Choices: A Practical Guide to Making Better Life Decisions. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  24. Knight, F. H. 1921. Risk, Uncertainty and Profit. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  25. Kweit, M. G., and R. W. Kweit. 1987. “The Politics of Policy Analysis.” In Citizen Participation in Public Decision Making, edited by J. DeSario and S. Langton. New York: Greenwood Press.Google Scholar
  26. Machlis, G. E., and E. Rosa. 1990. “Desired Risk: Broadening the Social Implication of Risk Framework.” Risk Analysis 10: 161–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Marsella, A. J. 1998. “Toward a ‘Global-Community Psychology’: Meeting the Needs of a Changing World.” American Psychologist 53: 1282–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Mason, R. O., and I. I. Mitroff. 1973. “A Program for Research on Management Information Systems.” Management Science 19 (5): 475–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. McRae, Duncan Jr., and Dale Whittington. 1997. Expert Advice for Policy Choice: Analysis and Discourse. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Mitroff, Ian A., and Francisco Sagasti. 1973. “Epistemology as General Systems Theory: An Approach to the Design of Complex Decision-making Experiments.” Philosophy of the Social Sciences 3: 117–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. National Research Council. 1989. Improving Risk Communication. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  32. O’Brien, E. 2003. “Human Values and Their Importance to the Development of Forestry Policy in Britain: A Literature Review.” Forestry 76: 3–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Patton, Carl V., and David S. Sawicki. 1993. Basic Methods of Policy Analysis and Planning, 2nd ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  34. Perrow, C. 1984. Normal Accidents: Living with High Risk Technologies. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  35. Putnam, R. D., R. Leonardi, and R. Y. Nanetti. 1993. Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Raffensperger, C., and J. Tickner. 1999. Protecting Public Health and the Environment: Implementing the Precautionary Principle. Washington, DC: Island Press.Google Scholar
  37. Raiffa, H. 1968. Decision Analysis. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  38. Rescher, N. 1969. Introduction to Value Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  39. Rittel, H. W. J., and M. M. Webber. 1973. “Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning.” Policy Sciences 4: 155–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Rosa, E. A., and D. L. J. Clark. 1999. “Historical Routes to Technological Gridlock: Nuclear Technology as Prototypical Vehicle.” Research in Social Problems and Public Policy 7:21–57.Google Scholar
  41. Rosa, E., A. Mazur, and T. Dietz. 1987. “Sociological Analysis of Risk Impacts Associated with the Siting of a High Level Nuclear Waste Repository: The Case of Hanford.” Paper presented at the Workshop on Assessing Social and Economic Effects of Perceived Risk, Seattle: Battelle Human Affairs Research Centers.Google Scholar
  42. Schwartz, S. H., and W. Bilsky. 1987. “Toward a Universal Psychological Structure of Human Values.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 53: 550–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Simon, Herbert A. 1960. The New Science of Management Decision. New York: Harper and Row.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Slovic, P. 1987. “Perception of Risk.” Science 236: 280–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Slovic, P. 2000. The Perception of Risk. Sterling, VA: Earthscan.Google Scholar
  46. Smith, F. 1997. Environmental Sustainability. Boca Raton, FL: St. Lucie Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Starr, C. 1969. “Social Benefit Versus Technological Risk.” Science 165: 1232–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Tversky, A., and D. Kahneman. 1982. “Availability: A Heuristic for Judging Frequency and Probability.” In Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases, edited by D. Kahneman, P. Slovic, and A. Tversky, 163–78. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  49. Walters, Lawrence C., James Aydelotte, and Jessica Miller. 2000. “Putting More Public in Policy Analysis.” Public Administration Review 60 (4): 349–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Watzlawick, P., J. Weakland, and R. Fisch. 1974. Change: Principles of Problem Formation and Problem Resolution. New York: Norton.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Island Press 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Peter J. Balint
    • 1
    Email author
  • Ronald E. Stewart
    • 2
  • Anand Desai
    • 3
  • Lawrence C. Walters
    • 4
  1. 1.George Mason UniversityFairfaxUSA
  2. 2.Mason UniversityFairfaxUSA
  3. 3.Ohio State UniversityColumbusUSA
  4. 4.Brigham Young UniversityProvoUSA

Personalised recommendations