Abstract

To ensure their collective optimality and acceptability, environmental management strategies should be evidence-based, having sound and objective scientific grounds. However, decision-making problems aiming for sustainability are typically complex and wicked, i.e. without a clear optimal solution. Thus different scientific disciplines and approaches can provide very different – though still scientifically valid – formally optimal solutions. On top of this, lately, environmental research literature has presented vast amounts of case studies on divergent participatory processes, suggesting stakeholders and assessment end-users should be involved in each step of the impact and scenario assessments. Researchers from different fields of science, as well as stakeholder parties, each tend to frame differently the social-environmental systems to be analyzed to answer the same assessment questions. Consequently, the key variables and even their interpretation of causalities in the system analyzed may vary remarkably. Above all, the framing of the assessment question per se may come from the end-user of the assessment results, potentially being the orderer and financer of the study. We discuss the impact of question and system framing on the assessment results from the perspective of decision analysis. We explore whether and when there is a risk that models end up producing policy-based evidence instead of the originally targeted evidence-based policy.
Original languageEnglish
Publication statusPublished - 2019
MoE publication typeNot Eligible
EventSustainability Science Days 2019 - University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland
Duration: 9 May 2019 → …

Conference

ConferenceSustainability Science Days 2019
CountryFinland
CityHelsinki
Period09/05/2019 → …

Fields of Science

  • 1172 Environmental sciences
  • 519 Social and economic geography

Cite this