Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-04T19:08:10.818Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Environmental Risk Analysis: Robustness Is Essential for Precaution

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

Jan Sprenger
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Precaution is a relevant and much-invoked value in environmental risk analysis, as witnessed by the ongoing vivid discussion about the precautionary principle (PP). This article argues (i) against purely decision-theoretic explications of PP; (ii) that the construction, evaluation, and use of scientific models falls under the scope of PP; and (iii) that epistemic and decision-theoretic robustness are essential for precautionary policy making. These claims are elaborated and defended by means of case studies from climate science and conservation biology.

Type
Norms of Science and Science Policy
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 79 , Issue 5 , December 2012 , pp. 881 - 892
Copyright
Copyright © The Philosophy of Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

†

For helpful discussion and feedback, I would like to thank Mark Burgman, Mark Colyvan, Sven Ove Hansson, Stephan Hartmann, James Justus, Martin Peterson, Helen Regan, Moshe Sniedovich, Katie Steele, Arie Trouwborst, Jonathan Verschuuren, and the numerous audiences where this work was presented. Research on this topic was financially supported by Veni grant 016.104.079 by the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research.

References

Ben-Haim, Yakov. 2006. Info-Gap Decision Theory: Decisions under Severe Uncertainty. 2nd ed. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
COMEST (World Commission on the Ethics of Scientific Knowledge and Technology). 2005. The Precautionary Principle. Paris: UNESCO.Google Scholar
Douglas, Heather. 2009. Science, Policy, and the Value-Free Ideal. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frame, D. J., Faull, N. E., Moshi, M. M., and Allen, M. R.. 2007. “Probabilistic Climate Forecasts and Inductive Problems.” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A 365:1971–92.Google ScholarPubMed
Hansson, Sven Ove. 1997. “The Limits of Precaution.” Foundations of Science 2:293–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holm, S⊘ren, and Harris, John. 1999. “Precautionary Principle Stifles Discovery.” Nature 400:398.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2007. “4th Assessment Report.” IPCC. http://www.ipcc.ch.Google Scholar
IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature). 2000. “The IUCN Redlist Categories and Criteria.” Vers. 3.1. IUCN, Gland. http://www.iucn.org.Google Scholar
Justus, James. 2012. “The Elusive Basis of Inferential Robustness.” Philosophy of Science, in this issue.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maguire, L. A., Seal, U. S., and Brussard, P. F.. 1987. “Managing Critically Endangered Species: A Case Study of the Sumatran Rhino.” In Viable Populations for Conservation, ed. Soulé, M., 141–58. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Nordhaus, William. 1991. “To Slow or Not to Slow: The Economics of the Greenhouse Effect.” Economic Journal 101:920–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peterson, Martin. 2006. “The Precautionary Principle Is Incoherent.” Risk Analysis 26:595–601.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Regan, H. M., Ben-Haim, Y., Langford, B., Wilson, W. G., Lundberg, P., Andelman, S. J., and Burgman, M. A.. 2005. “Robust Decision Making under Severe Uncertainty for Conservation Management.” Ecological Applications 15:1471–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Resnik, Michael D. 1987. Choices: An Introduction to Decision Theory. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Sandin, Per. 1999. “Dimensions of the Precautionary Principle.” Human and Ecological Risk Assessment 5:889–907.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sniedovich, Moshe. 2010. “A Bird's View of Info-Gap Decision Theory.” Journal of Risk Finance 11:268–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steele, Katie. 2006. “The Precautionary Principle: A New Approach to Public Decision-Making?” Law, Probability and Risk 5:19–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stern, Nicholas. 2007. The Economics of Climate Change: The Stern Review. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tebaldi, Claudia, and Knutti, Reto. 2007. “The Use of the Multi-Model Ensemble in Probabilistic Climate Projections.” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A 365:2053–75.Google ScholarPubMed
Trouwborst, Arie. 2006. “Precautionary Rights and Duties of States.” PhD diss., Utrecht University.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nations, United. 1993. Principle 15 of the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development. In Report of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, Stockholm, 5–16 June 1972. New York: United Nations. http://www.unep.org/Documents.multilingual/Default.asp?DocumentID=78&ArticleID=1163.Google Scholar
Wiener, Jonathan, Rogers, Michael D., Hammitt, James K., and Sand, Peter H.. 2010. The Reality of Precaution. London: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar