Managing uncertainty, ambiguity and ignorance in impact assessment by embedding evolutionary resilience, participatory modelling and adaptive management

Abstract

In the context of continuing uncertainty, ambiguity and ignorance in impact assessment (IA) prediction, the case is made that existing IA processes are based on false 'normal' assumptions that science can solve problems and transfer knowledge into policy. Instead, a 'post-normal science' approach is needed that acknowledges the limits of current levels of scientific understanding. We argue that this can be achieved through embedding evolutionary resilience into IA; using participatory workshops; and emphasizing adaptive management. The goal is an IA process capable of informing policy choices in the face of uncertain influences acting on socio-ecological systems. We propose a specific set of process steps to operationalise this post-normal science approach which draws on work undertaken by the Resilience Alliance. This process differs significantly from current models of IA, as it has a far greater focus on avoidance of, or adaptation to (through incorporating adaptive management subsequent to decisions), unwanted future scenarios rather than a focus on the identification of the implications of a single preferred vision. Implementing such a process * corresponding author 2 would represent a culture change in IA practice as a lack of knowledge is assumed and explicit, and forms the basis of future planning activity, rather than being ignored.

Global megatrends and their implications for environmental assessment practice

“…Our first challenge (complexity and uncertainty) is justified based on work by Bond et al (2015) who argue that existing EA practice is poor at dealing with complexity and uncertainty, meaning that predictions can be plain wrong (e.g., Holling, 1978;Dipper et al, 1998;Bennett et al, 2001). Indeed, arguments are made that EA should include consideration of system resilience in order to better consider uncertainty (Benson and Garmestani, 2011;Slootweg and Jones, 2011;Matthews et al, 2014).…”

Analysis of uncertainty consideration in environmental assessment: an empirical study of Canadian EA practice

“…Different types of uncertainty can be distinguished, some of which may be possible to quantify (e.g., Benetto, Dujet, and Rousseaux 2006, Peche and Rodriguez 2011, Ross, Booker, and Montoya 2013, while other types are not due to lack of knowledge about the components and structure of the environmental or socioeconomic systems affected (Duncan 2013;Bond et al 2015). For each environmental component (e.g., air, water, soils, wildlife) identified in each EIS, specific uncertainties in mitigation, contingency plans, and follow-up programs were then categorized based on: (1) what the uncertainty was generally about; (2) the nature and level of uncertainty disclosure; and (3) how the uncertainty was addressed.…”

Design and impact assessment of watershed investments: An approach based on ecosystem services and boundary work

“…In addition, this research contributes to embedding resilience thinking into impact assessment, by incorporating at least three of the five changes to "business as usual impact assessment", as suggested by Bond et al (2015). More specifically, the strategic component clearly identifies as key inputs of the process of WI design and assessment, the definition of objectives and visioning of feasible and desirable scenarios by stakeholders.…”

“…In particular, this study attempts to address an emerging need to "embed resilience thinking into impact assessment; using participatory workshops; and emphasizing adaptive management", as recently suggested by Bond et al (2015). As they put it, 'business as usual' impact assessment ought to move towards an objectives-led, visioning approach; focus on uncontrollable threats; promote use of analytic-deliberative techniques; focus on embedding resilience in scenarios, and on uncertain events; and recognize the necessity of continual adaptation to changing circumstances.…”