scholarly journals Landscope: Fire The Force Of Life

2000 ◽  
Vol 6 (3) ◽  
pp. 275
Author(s):  
Kelli O'Neill
Keyword(s):  
Western Australia ◽  
Precautionary Principle ◽  
General Public ◽  
Forest Ecosystems ◽  
Prescribed Burning ◽  
Environmental Movement ◽  
The Precautionary Principle ◽  
Australian Flora ◽  
Final Group ◽  
Over Time

The use of fire in Western Australia to manage forest ecosystems is contentious. There is huge disagreement between scientists, the environmental movement and members of the general public over the effects of prescribed burning. Some believe that the Australian flora and fauna has adapted to fire over time and needs it for their continued survival. Others perceive prescribed burning as damaging to biota. A final group of people thinks we should be applying the precautionary principle to prescribed burning. This disagreement is present due to the slim knowledge we have on fire and its management. No one really knows, how, when or if we should use prescribed burning.

Reconstructing Precaution, Deconstructing Misconceptions

2007 ◽  
Vol 21 (3) ◽  
pp. 359-379 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alessandra Arcuri
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Precautionary Principle ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
International Level ◽  
Environmental Preservation ◽  
The Precautionary Principle ◽  
Heated Debate ◽  
Technological Developments ◽  
Decision Making Processes ◽  
Over Time

The precautionary principle, widely endorsed at the national and international level, continues to be at the center of a heated debate. Some authors claim that the principle is unscientific; others argue that the principle is paralyzing and gives decision-makers no direction. Confusion and misconceptions are generated by the multiplicity of definitions and interpretations of the precautionary principle. This essay contributes to the debate on the precautionary principle in two ways: (1) it clarifies what a mild formulation of the principle entails, and (2) it identifies a number of misconceptions underlying some of the main criticisms of the principle.A reasonable formulation of the precautionary principle requires both substantive and procedural elements: the substantive element suggests that in circumstances where uncertainties and risks of irreversible harms are present, decisions should err on the side of environmental preservation; the procedural element suggests that the principle should favour decision-making processes that are iterative and informative over time and that integrate experts' assessments of the risks to be governed and people's preferences and values.Against this background, five misconceptions underlying the main criticisms of the precautionary principle are identified and deconstructed. The analysis of the misconceptions sheds further light on the fact that following the principle, processes of learning are stimulated, and accordingly, technology is not halted; to the contrary, the application of the principle leads to a better understanding of technological developments and their effects.

scholarly journals Communities of practice in the management of an Arctic environment: monitoring knowledge as complementary to scientific knowledge and the precautionary principle?

Polar Record ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 52 (1) ◽  
pp. 66-75 ◽  
Author(s):  
Torill Nyseth ◽  
Arvid Viken
Keyword(s):  
Communities Of Practice ◽  
Precautionary Principle ◽  
Negative Impact ◽  
Scientific Evidence ◽  
Environment Monitoring ◽  
Summer Period ◽  
The Precautionary Principle ◽  
Management Platform ◽  
Cruise Tourism ◽  
Over Time

ABSTRACTThis article addresses knowledge management in governing vulnerable polar areas and tourism. Since the 1870s, Svalbard has been a cruise tourism destination. Due to less ice during the summer period, the number of tourists visiting the remote northeast corner of the archipelago has increased significantly, and the potential negative impact on this vulnerable natural environment has become an issue. The standard modes of managing these areas have either been to apply the precautionary principle or measures based on scientific evidence. As management models, however, both principles are contested for a number of reasons. This paper argues for a third model that is partly based on a form of monitoring knowledge that has circulated in ‘communities of practice’ and that has been developed over time. This form of knowledge constitutes viable expertise for the governing and management of the environment-tourism nexus in the area, but it needs to be acknowledged as a complementary management platform. This article demonstrates how such monitoring can be done, and it suggests some principles for the development of monitoring knowledge for administrative and management purposes.

Environmentalists, Nuclear Waste, and the Politics of Passive Exclusion in Germany

2001 ◽  
Vol 19 (4) ◽  
pp. 43-63 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christian Hunold
Keyword(s):  
Public Policy ◽  
Public Sphere ◽  
Nuclear Waste ◽  
Environmental Movement ◽  
The State ◽  
Radioactive Wastes ◽  
Liberal Democratic ◽  
Democratic State ◽  
Ecological Democracy ◽  
Over Time

In this essay I examine the dispute between the German GreenParty and some of the country’s environmental nongovernmentalorganizations (NGOs) over the March 2001 renewal of rail shipmentsof highly radioactive wastes to Gorleben. My purpose indoing so is to test John Dryzek’s 1996 claim that environmentalistsought to beware of what they wish for concerning inclusion in theliberal democratic state. Inclusion on the wrong terms, arguesDryzek, may prove detrimental to the goals of greening and democratizingpublic policy because such inclusion may compromise thesurvival of a green public sphere that is vital to both. Prospects forecological democracy, understood in terms of strong ecologicalmodernization here, depend on historically conditioned relationshipsbetween the state and the environmental movement that fosterthe emergence and persistence over time of such a public sphere.

The Controllability Precautionary Principle: Justification of a Climate Policy Goal Under Uncertainty

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eugen Pissarskoi
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Climate Policy ◽  
Precautionary Principle ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
Policy Goal ◽  
The Precautionary Principle ◽  
Climate Change Policies

How can we reasonably justify a climate policy goal if we accept that only possible consequences from climate change are known? Precautionary principles seem to offer promising guidelines for reasoning in such epistemic situations. This chapter presents two versions of the precautionary principle (PP) and defends one of them as morally justifiable. However, it argues that current versions of the PP do not allow discrimination between relevant climate change policies. Therefore, the chapter develops a further version of the PP, the Controllability Precautionary Principle (CPP), and defends its moral plausibility. The CPP incorporates the following idea: in a situation when the possible outcomes of the available actions cannot be ranked with regard to their value, the choice between available options for action should rest on the comparison of how well decision makers can control the processes of the implementation of the available strategies.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document