TY - JOUR
T1 - Quality in environmental science for policy: assessing uncertainty as a component of policy analysis
AU - Maxim, L.
AU - van der Sluijs, J.P.
PY - 2011
Y1 - 2011
N2 - The sheer number of attempts to define and classify uncertainty reveals an awareness of its
importance in environmental science for policy, though the nature of uncertainty is often
misunderstood. The interdisciplinary field of uncertainty analysis is unstable; there are
currently several incomplete notions of uncertainty leading to different and incompatible
uncertainty classifications. One of the most salient shortcomings of present-day practice is
that most of these classifications focus on quantifying uncertainty while ignoring the
qualitative aspects that tend to be decisive in the interface between science and policy.
Consequently, the current practices of uncertainty analysis contribute to increasing the
perceived precision of scientific knowledge, but do not adequately address its lack of sociopolitical
relevance. The ‘‘positivistic’’ uncertainty analysis models (like those that dominate
the fields of climate change modelling and nuclear or chemical risk assessment) have little
social relevance, as they do not influence negotiations between stakeholders. From the
perspective of the science-policy interface, the current practices of uncertainty analysis are
incomplete and incorrectly focused.
We argue that although scientific knowledge produced and used in a context of political
decision-making embodies traditional scientific characteristics, it also holds additional
properties linked to its influence on social, political, and economic relations. Therefore,
the significance of uncertainty cannot be assessed based on quality criteria that refer to the
scientific content only; uncertainty must also include quality criteria specific to the properties
and roles of this scientific knowledge within political, social, and economic contexts and
processes.
We propose a conceptual framework designed to account for such substantive, contextual,
and procedural criteria of knowledge quality. At the same time, the proposed framework
includes and synthesizes the various classes of uncertainty highlighted in the
literature.
AB - The sheer number of attempts to define and classify uncertainty reveals an awareness of its
importance in environmental science for policy, though the nature of uncertainty is often
misunderstood. The interdisciplinary field of uncertainty analysis is unstable; there are
currently several incomplete notions of uncertainty leading to different and incompatible
uncertainty classifications. One of the most salient shortcomings of present-day practice is
that most of these classifications focus on quantifying uncertainty while ignoring the
qualitative aspects that tend to be decisive in the interface between science and policy.
Consequently, the current practices of uncertainty analysis contribute to increasing the
perceived precision of scientific knowledge, but do not adequately address its lack of sociopolitical
relevance. The ‘‘positivistic’’ uncertainty analysis models (like those that dominate
the fields of climate change modelling and nuclear or chemical risk assessment) have little
social relevance, as they do not influence negotiations between stakeholders. From the
perspective of the science-policy interface, the current practices of uncertainty analysis are
incomplete and incorrectly focused.
We argue that although scientific knowledge produced and used in a context of political
decision-making embodies traditional scientific characteristics, it also holds additional
properties linked to its influence on social, political, and economic relations. Therefore,
the significance of uncertainty cannot be assessed based on quality criteria that refer to the
scientific content only; uncertainty must also include quality criteria specific to the properties
and roles of this scientific knowledge within political, social, and economic contexts and
processes.
We propose a conceptual framework designed to account for such substantive, contextual,
and procedural criteria of knowledge quality. At the same time, the proposed framework
includes and synthesizes the various classes of uncertainty highlighted in the
literature.
U2 - 10.1016/j.envsci.2011.01.003
DO - 10.1016/j.envsci.2011.01.003
M3 - Article
SN - 1462-9011
VL - 14
SP - 482
EP - 492
JO - Environmental Science & Policy
JF - Environmental Science & Policy
IS - 4
ER -