A demonstration of the necessity and feasibility of using a clumsy decision analytic approach on wicked environmental problems

Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management

Volumn 9, Issue 1, 2013, Pages 17-30

  Stahl, Cynthia ^a   Cimorelli, Alan ^a  

^a U S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY   (United States)

Author keywords

Clumsy solutions; Decision analysis; Environmental management; Transdisciplinary learning; Wicked problems

Indexed keywords

AIR; AIR POLLUTION; ARTICLE; DECISION MAKING; ECOLOGY; ENVIRONMENT; ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING; FEASIBILITY STUDY; GOVERNMENT; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; STATISTICS; UNITED STATES;

AIR; AIR POLLUTION; DATA INTERPRETATION, STATISTICAL; DECISION MAKING; ECOLOGY; ENVIRONMENT; ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY; FEASIBILITY STUDIES; UNITED STATES; UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY;

MLCS; MLOWN;

EID: 84878380902     PISSN: 15513793     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/ieam.1356     Document Type: Article

References (33)

1. Ascough JC II, Maier HR, Ravalico JK, Strudley MW. 2008. Future research challenges for incorporation of uncertainty in environmental and ecological decision-making. Ecol Model 219:383-399.
2. Bell S, Morse S. 1999. Sustainability indicators: Measuring the immeasurable. London: Earthscan. Publications.
3. Byun D, Schere KL. 2006. Review of the governing equations, computational algorithms, and other components of the models-3 community multiscale air quality (CMAQ) modeling system. Appl Mech Rev 59:51-77.
4. Carter WPL. 2000. Implementation of the SAPRC-99 chemical mechanism into the Models-3 framework. Report to the United States Environmental Protection Agency [cited 23 October 2012]. Available from: http://www.cert.ucr.edu/~;carter/absts.htm#s99mod3
5. Cimorelli AJ, Stahl CH. 2005. Tackling the dilemma of the science-policy interface in environmental policy analysis. Bull Sci Technol Soc 25:46-52.
6. Clean Air Act. 1990. Section 181, 42 U.S.C. 7511.
7. Gurjar BJ,Manju M. 2003. Integrated risk analysis for acute and chronic exposure to toxic chemicals. J Hazard Mat A103:25-40.
8. Gutmann A, Thompson D. 1996. Democracy and disagreement: Why moral conflict cannot be avoided in politics, and what should be done about it. Cambridge: (MA): Harvard University Press. 422 pp.
9. Harremoes P, Gee D, MacGarvin M, Stirling A, Keys J, Wynne B, Vaz SG. 2001. Twelve late lessons. In: Late lessons from early warning: the precautionary principle 1896-2000 Copenhagen Denmark: European Environment Agency. p 168-194.
10. Kapustka L, Froese K, McCormick R. 2010. Revisiting the rationale for holistic, integrated risk assessments. Integr Environ Assess Manag 6:774-776.
11. Luecken DJ, Cimorelli AJ. 2008. Codependencies of reactive air toxics and criteria pollutants on emission reductions. J Air Waste Manage Assoc 58:693-701.
12. Mazur A. 1993. The Science Court: Reminiscence and retrospective. Risk Health Saf Environ 4:161.
13. Moermond CTA, Janssen MPM, de Knect JA, Montforts MHMM, Peijnenburg WJGM, Zweers PGPC, Sijm DTHM. 2012. PBT assessment using the revised Annex XIII of REACH-A comparison with other regulatory frameworks. Integr Environ Assess Manag 8:359-371.
14. National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences. 2009. Toward a unified approach to dose-response assessment: The need for an improved dose-response framework. In: Science and decisions: Advancing risk assessment. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. p 127-187.
15. Natural Step Canada. 2009. Integrated community sustainability planning: A guide: The natural step. Available from: www.naturalstep.org
16. Rittel HWJ,Webber MM. 1973. Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sci 4:155-169.
17. Saaty TL. 1990. Multicriteria decision making: The analytic hierarchy process. Pittsburgh (PA): RWS Publications. 287 pp.
18. Shields DJ, Solar SV, Martin WE. 2002. The role of values and objectives in communicating indicators of sustainability. Ecol Indic 2:149-160.
19. Siebenhuner B. 2002. How do scientific assessments learn? Part 1. Conceptual framework and case study of the IPCC. Environ Sci Policy 5: 411-420.
20. Soderbaum P. 2006. Democracy and sustainable development-What is the alternative to cost-benefit analysis? Integr Environ Assess Manag 2: 182-190.
21. Stahl CH, Cimorelli AJ. 2005. How much uncertainty is too much and how do we know? A case example of the assessment of ozone monitoring network options. Risk Anal 25:1109-1120.
22. Stahl CH, Cimorelli AJ, Chow AH. 2002. A New approach to environmental decision analysis: Multi-criteria integrated resource assessment (MIRA). Bull Sci Technol Soc 22:443-459.
23. Stahl CH, Cimorelli AJ, Mazzarella C, Jenkins B. 2011. Toward sustainability: A case study demonstrating trans-disciplinary learning through the selection and use of indicators in a decision making process. Integr Environ Assess Manag 7:483-498.
24. Susskind LE, Cruikshank J. 1987. Breaking the impasse: Consensual approaches to resolving public disputes. New York: Basic Books. 288 pp.
25. [USEPA]. US Environmental Protection Agency. 1999. National-scale air toxics assessment. [last updated on 1 July 2010]. Available from: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/nata1999/nsata99.html
26. [USEPA]. US Environmental Protection Agency. 2001. Improved science-based environmental stakeholder processes: A commentary by the EPA Science Advisory Board. Washington, DC: USEPA. EPA-SAB-EC-COM-01-006.
27. [USEPA]. US Environmental Protection Agency. 2002. National emission standards for hazardous air pollutants for source categories: General provisions; and requirements for control technology determinations for major sources in accordance with Clean Air Act sections, sections 112(g) and 112(j). 40 CFR Part 63. Fed Reg 67:16582-16611.
28. [USEPA]. US Environmental Protection Agency. 2006. National ambient air quality standards for particulate matter; final rule. Fed Reg 71:61144.
29. [USEPA]. US Environmental Protection Agency. 2008. National ambient air quality standards for ozone; final rule. Fed Reg 73:16436-16514.
30. [USEPA], US Environmental Protection Agency. 2010. Multi-criteria integrated resource assessment MIRA [cited 23 October 2012]. Available from: http://www.epa.gov/reg3esd1/data/mira.htm
31. [USEPA], US Environmental Protection Agency. 2011. Washington, DC: Integrated Risk Information Systems IRIS [cited 23 October 2012]. Available from: http://www.epa.gov/IRIS/
32. Vermeij M, Douglas M, Ellis R, Engel C, Hendriks F, Lohmann S, Ney S, Rayner S, Thompson M. 2006. The case for clumsiness. In: Clumsy solutions for a complex world: Governance, politics plural perceptions. In: Vermeij M, et al. editors. New York: (NY): Palgrave MacMillan. p 1-27.
33. Zendehdel K, Rademaker M, De Baets B, Van Huylenbroeck G. 2009. Improving tractability of group decision making on environmental problems through the use of social intensities of preferences. Environ Model Softw 24:1457-1466.