The provision and utility of science and uncertainty to decision-makers: earth science case studies
The provision and utility of science and uncertainty to decision-makers: earth science case studies
复制标题
科学的提供和效用以及决策者的不确定性：地球科学案例研究
DOI：
10.1007/s10669-019-09728-0
复制
发表时间：
2018
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
C. White
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
M. Quigley;L. Bennetts;P. Durance;P. Kuhnert;M. Lindsay;K. Pembleton;M. E. Roberts;C. White
本文研究了如何向决策者提供科学信息和专业知识，以供决策者在涉及风险和不确定性的情况下考虑。本次阐述使用了七个地球科学案例研究：(1) 2010-2011 年新西兰坎特伯雷地震序列，(2) 昆士兰西北部的农业耕作系统发展，(3) 实用洪水模型，(4) 塔斯马尼亚自然灾害风险评估，(5) 新西兰深海采矿，(6) 地质资源沉积的 3-D 建模，以及 (7) 澳大利亚大堡礁的陆基污染物负荷礁石。案例研究由来自大学、工业界或政府科学机构的各类科学家主导撰写，他们对所讨论的事件具有不同的角色、经验和观点。介绍了获取科学信息、向决策者提供科学信息以及在决策中使用科学信息的背景和机制。讨论了科学不确定性的来源以及如何在决策过程中传达和考虑这些不确定性。每个案例研究中制定的决策均考虑其是否具有科学依据、是否与流行的科学证据一致、是否考虑了科学不确定性、是否基于模型以及是否具有预防性。还描述了其他相关投入（例如政治、社会经济考虑因素）在决策中的作用。在这里，我们证明科学证据可以通过多种途径进入决策过程，从决策者的直接征求到利益相关者在媒体报道相关研究后提出的独立请求。如果不能立即提供相关的科学数据来满足决策者的要求，决策者可以（i）寻求专家的科学建议和判断（以协助在高度认知不确定性的情况下做出决策），（ii）推迟决策（直到获得足够的证据），和/或（iii）在获得更多信息时提供调整决策的机会。如果决策者认为未来发生潜在不利风险的可能性超过可接受的阈值和/或高度不确定，则可能会倾向于采取具有适应能力的预防性决策，即使一些科学证据表明风险水平较低。相关科学数据、模型和不确定性对决策的影响可能与多种因素有关，包括获取这些信息的便利性、所提供信息的感知强度和相关性、相关专家在与决策者和利益相关者的科学交流中参与和合作的程度，以及决策者认为优先考虑地球科学信息而不是其他可能相互冲突的科学和非科学信息的风险。本文提供了详细的澳大利亚和新西兰案例研究，展示了科学行动和提供途径如何促进决策过程。我们概述了这些案例研究中的关键经验教训，并鼓励通过记录的示例提供更多经验证据，以帮助指导未来的决策实践。
This paper investigates how scientific information and expertise was provided to decision-makers for consideration in situations involving risk and uncertainty. Seven case studies from the earth sciences were used as a medium for this exposition: (1) the 2010–2011 Canterbury earthquake sequence in New Zealand, (2) agricultural farming-system development in North West Queensland, (3) operational flood models, (4) natural disaster risk assessment for Tasmania, (5) deep sea mining in New Zealand, (6) 3-D modelling of geological resource deposits, and (7) land-based pollutant loads to Australia’s Great Barrier Reef. Case studies are lead-authored by a diverse range of scientists, based either in universities, industry, or government science agencies, with diverse roles, experiences, and perspectives on the events discussed. The context and mechanisms by which scientific information was obtained, presented to decision-makers, and utilised in decision-making is presented. Sources of scientific uncertainties and how they were communicated to and considered in decision-making processes are discussed. Decisions enacted in each case study are considered in terms of whether they were scientifically informed, aligned with prevailing scientific evidence, considered scientific uncertainty, were informed by models, and were (or were not) precautionary in nature. The roles of other relevant inputs (e.g. political, socioeconomic considerations) in decision-making are also described. Here we demonstrate that scientific evidence may enter decision-making processes through diverse pathways, ranging from direct solicitations by decision-makers to independent requests from stakeholders following media coverage of relevant research. If immediately relevant scientific data cannot be provided with sufficient expediency to meet the demands of decision-makers, decision-makers may (i) seek expert scientific advice and judgement (to assist with decision-making under conditions of high epistemic uncertainty), (ii) delay decision-making (until sufficient evidence is obtained), and/or (iii) provide opportunities for adjustment of decisions as additional information becomes available. If the likelihood of occurrence of potentially adverse future risks is perceived by decision-makers to exceed acceptable thresholds and/or be highly uncertain, precautionary decisions with adaptive capacity may be favoured, even if some scientific evidence suggests lower levels of risk. The efficacy with which relevant scientific data, models, and uncertainties contribute to decision-making may relate to factors including the expediency with which this information can be obtained, the perceived strength and relevance of the information presented, the extent to which relevant experts have participated and collaborated in scientific communications to decision-makers and stakeholders, and the perceived risks to decision-makers of favouring earth science information above other, potentially conflicting, scientific and non-scientific inputs. This paper provides detailed Australian and New Zealand case studies showcasing how science actions and provision pathways contribute to decision-making processes. We outline key learnings from these case studies and encourage more empirical evidence through documented examples to help guide decision-making practices in the future.
GNS科学/坎特伯雷大学（新西兰）
DOI：
--
发表时间：
--
期刊：
影响因子：
--
作者：
通讯作者：
--