Search results

International audience ; La notion de biodiversité revêt un statut réellement particulier. Elle trouve naturellement sa place dans des discours scientifiques mais, contrairement à la plupart des concepts scientifiques, elle joue un rôle-clef dans une série vaste et hétérogène de disciplines. Elle sort même du champ des sciences au sens large pour investir des sphères dans lesquels les concepts scientifiques trouvent rarement leur place : celle du discours politique et celle du discours vernaculaire. Nous proposons ici une hypothèse d'explicitation de la notion et nous montrons que prendre au sérieux son statut pragmatique permet de mettre au jour la caractéristique qui conditionne l'omniprésence et l'unicité du terme ainsi que la transdisciplinarité de la notion. Cette caractéristique, qui est son caractère cognitif fractal, garantit la possibilité d'un enseignement de la biodiversité et en renforce la nécessité.

International audience ; Decision support is the science and associated practice that consist in providing recommendations to decision makers facing problems, based on available theoretical knowledge and empirical data. Although this activity is often seen as being mainly concerned with solving mathematical problems and conceiving algorithms, it is essentially an empirical and socially framed activity, where interactions between clients and analysts, and between them and concerned third parties, play a crucial role. Since the 80s', two concepts have structured the literature devoted to analysing this aspect of decision support: validity and legitimacy. Whereas validity is focused on the interactions between the client and the analyst, legitimacy refers to the broader picture: the organisational context, the overall problem situation, the environment, culture, history. Despite its unmistakable importance, this concept has not received the attention it deserves in the literature in operational research and decision support. The present chapter aims at filling this gap. For that purpose, we review the literature in other disciplines (mainly philosophy and political science) that is demonstrably relevant to elaborate a concept of legitimacy useful in decision support contexts. Based on this review, we propose a general theory of legitimacy, adapted to decision support contexts, encompassing the relevant contributions we found in the literature. According to this general theory, a legitimate decision support intervention is one for which the decision support provider produces a justification that satisfies two conditions: (i) it effectively convinces the decision support provider's interlocutors (effectiveness condition) and (ii) it is organised around the active elicitation of as many and as diverse counterarguments as possible (truthfulness condition). Despite its conceptual simplicity, legitimacy, understood in this sense, is a very exacting requirement, opening ambitious research avenues that we delineate.

International audience ; Decision support is the science and associated practice that consist in providing recommendations to decision makers facing problems, based on available theoretical knowledge and empirical data. Although this activity is often seen as being mainly concerned with solving mathematical problems and conceiving algorithms, it is essentially an empirical and socially framed activity, where interactions between clients and analysts, and between them and concerned third parties, play a crucial role. Since the 80s', two concepts have structured the literature devoted to analysing this aspect of decision support: validity and legitimacy. Whereas validity is focused on the interactions between the client and the analyst, legitimacy refers to the broader picture: the organisational context, the overall problem situation, the environment, culture, history. Despite its unmistakable importance, this concept has not received the attention it deserves in the literature in operational research and decision support. The present chapter aims at filling this gap. For that purpose, we review the literature in other disciplines (mainly philosophy and political science) that is demonstrably relevant to elaborate a concept of legitimacy useful in decision support contexts. Based on this review, we propose a general theory of legitimacy, adapted to decision support contexts, encompassing the relevant contributions we found in the literature. According to this general theory, a legitimate decision support intervention is one for which the decision support provider produces a justification that satisfies two conditions: (i) it effectively convinces the decision support provider's interlocutors (effectiveness condition) and (ii) it is organised around the active elicitation of as many and as diverse counterarguments as possible (truthfulness condition). Despite its conceptual simplicity, legitimacy, understood in this sense, is a very exacting requirement, opening ambitious research avenues that we delineate.

International audience ; Decision support is the science and associated practice that consist in providing recommendations to decision makers facing problems, based on available theoretical knowledge and empirical data. Although this activity is often seen as being mainly concerned with solving mathematical problems and conceiving algorithms, it is essentially an empirical and socially framed activity, where interactions between clients and analysts, and between them and concerned third parties, play a crucial role. Since the 80s', two concepts have structured the literature devoted to analysing this aspect of decision support: validity and legitimacy. Whereas validity is focused on the interactions between the client and the analyst, legitimacy refers to the broader picture: the organisational context, the overall problem situation, the environment, culture, history. Despite its unmistakable importance, this concept has not received the attention it deserves in the literature in operational research and decision support. The present chapter aims at filling this gap. For that purpose, we review the literature in other disciplines (mainly philosophy and political science) that is demonstrably relevant to elaborate a concept of legitimacy useful in decision support contexts. Based on this review, we propose a general theory of legitimacy, adapted to decision support contexts, encompassing the relevant contributions we found in the literature. According to this general theory, a legitimate decision support intervention is one for which the decision support provider produces a justification that satisfies two conditions: (i) it effectively convinces the decision support provider's interlocutors (effectiveness condition) and (ii) it is organised around the active elicitation of as many and as diverse counterarguments as possible (truthfulness condition). Despite its conceptual simplicity, legitimacy, understood in this sense, is a very exacting requirement, opening ambitious research avenues that we delineate.

Abstract – In this article, we study various so-called " decision aiding " practices used to design and implement environmental public policies, based on " economic arguments ". We analyse these practices to determine if they truly provide an aid to decision-making. We tackle this issue thanks to a case-based inquiry, implemented in two, very different case-studies: the " red muds " of Gardanne, and the territorial public policies devoted to conserve and restore wetlands in France. These cases exemplify practices sharing a similar pathology: they claim to take advantage of economic science, but in fact they are based on fallacious rationales which fail to satisfy even minimal rigorousness and scientificity requirements. We do not claim to produce quantitative evidence that our observation is generalizable. We rather claim that our empirical elements can be used to articulate ideas whose generality should be investigated in future quantitative studies: (i) decision aiding, when applied to environmental public policies, is barely, if at all, based on economic science; (ii) it nevertheless is overwhelmed by economic vocabulary, which suggests that (iii) the legitimacy of environmental public policies is badly undermined by decision aiding practices which, for lack of a robust anchorage in economic science, systematically weaken any possible justification of these policies. Mots clefs: aide à la décision, politiques environnementales, science économique, arguments, légi-timité ; – Nous analysons des arguments économiques utilisés en aide à la décision en politique publique environnementale. Pour cela, nous appliquons une méthodologie d'étude de cas aux boues rouges de Gardanne et aux politiques territoriales de zones humides. Ces cas illustrent une même pathologie : des aides à la décision prétendent s'appuyer sur la science économique, mais échouent à remplir des critères minimaux de rigueur et scientificité. Ces cas permettent ainsi de formuler des idées que des études ultérieures pourront tester : (i) l'aide à la ...

Abstract – In this article, we study various so-called " decision aiding " practices used to design and implement environmental public policies, based on " economic arguments ". We analyse these practices to determine if they truly provide an aid to decision-making. We tackle this issue thanks to a case-based inquiry, implemented in two, very different case-studies: the " red muds " of Gardanne, and the territorial public policies devoted to conserve and restore wetlands in France. These cases exemplify practices sharing a similar pathology: they claim to take advantage of economic science, but in fact they are based on fallacious rationales which fail to satisfy even minimal rigorousness and scientificity requirements. We do not claim to produce quantitative evidence that our observation is generalizable. We rather claim that our empirical elements can be used to articulate ideas whose generality should be investigated in future quantitative studies: (i) decision aiding, when applied to environmental public policies, is barely, if at all, based on economic science; (ii) it nevertheless is overwhelmed by economic vocabulary, which suggests that (iii) the legitimacy of environmental public policies is badly undermined by decision aiding practices which, for lack of a robust anchorage in economic science, systematically weaken any possible justification of these policies. Mots clefs: aide à la décision, politiques environnementales, science économique, arguments, légi-timité ; – Nous analysons des arguments économiques utilisés en aide à la décision en politique publique environnementale. Pour cela, nous appliquons une méthodologie d'étude de cas aux boues rouges de Gardanne et aux politiques territoriales de zones humides. Ces cas illustrent une même pathologie : des aides à la décision prétendent s'appuyer sur la science économique, mais échouent à remplir des critères minimaux de rigueur et scientificité. Ces cas permettent ainsi de formuler des idées que des études ultérieures pourront tester : (i) l'aide à la ...

Le concept d'utilité a joué un rôle majeur dans l'histoire de la pensée économique et il demeure central dans l'analyse économique contemporaine. Mais quelle est la signification de l'utilité ? Nous mobilisons la littérature philosophique pour apporter une réponse à cette question. En nous basant sur les approches philosophiques de la signification, nous proposons une définition générale de la signification. Selon cette définition, toute explication d'un acte qui est susceptible d'être acceptée par l'agent accomplissant cet acte peut être appelée « signification ». Nous soutenons que le concept d'utilité fournit une conception économique de la signification. Cette idée comporte deux aspects importants. Premièrement, elle pointe le fait que l'utilité satisfait notre définition de la signification dans la mesure où les axiomes de la théorie du choix peuvent être compris par les agents. Deuxièmement, de façon plus spécifique, cette idée permet de définir un critère pour juger si des cas particuliers de représentation en termes d'utilité ont une signification. La principale conséquence théorique de cette approche est que, lorsqu'une représentation de l'utilité satisfait les exigences pour être appelée « signification », l'utilisation des axiomes de la théorie du choix est justifiée, ce qui ne laisse pas d'avoir des implications pour l'économie appliquée.

International audience ; The European Habitat Directive encompasses a conservation policy devoted to conserve habitats rather than single species. This ambition has strong ecological justifications, and inspires other initiatives such as the IUCN red list of ecosystems. Evaluating this policy is therefore pivotal to identify and reproduce best practices. However, the habitat aspect of this policy has so far not been systematically assessed. To make up for this lacuna, we take advantage of decision-aiding methodologies to introduce a new normative framework. According to this framework, a conservation policy is positively evaluated if it contributes to conservation, is science-based, operational, and legitimate. Based on an exploration of the published literature and unpublished reports and databases, we identify knowledge gaps plaguing the European habitat conservation policy. We argue that, due to these knowledge gaps, the contribution of this policy to the conservation of habitats is unproven, it is not science-based, not operational and not legitimate. Our study draws heavily on the French implementation. Analyzing this example, we highlight knowledge gaps that carry lessons for European conservation policies as a whole, but also for conservation initiatives focused on habitats in a broader geographical and political context. We then identify concrete means to strengthen habitats conservation policies.

International audience ; The European Habitat Directive encompasses a conservation policy devoted to conserve habitats rather than single species. This ambition has strong ecological justifications, and inspires other initiatives such as the IUCN red list of ecosystems. Evaluating this policy is therefore pivotal to identify and reproduce best practices. However, the habitat aspect of this policy has so far not been systematically assessed. To make up for this lacuna, we take advantage of decision-aiding methodologies to introduce a new normative framework. According to this framework, a conservation policy is positively evaluated if it contributes to conservation, is science-based, operational, and legitimate. Based on an exploration of the published literature and unpublished reports and databases, we identify knowledge gaps plaguing the European habitat conservation policy. We argue that, due to these knowledge gaps, the contribution of this policy to the conservation of habitats is unproven, it is not science-based, not operational and not legitimate. Our study draws heavily on the French implementation. Analyzing this example, we highlight knowledge gaps that carry lessons for European conservation policies as a whole, but also for conservation initiatives focused on habitats in a broader geographical and political context. We then identify concrete means to strengthen habitats conservation policies.

International audience ; The European Habitat Directive encompasses a conservation policy devoted to conserve habitats rather than single species. This ambition has strong ecological justifications, and inspires other initiatives such as the IUCN red list of ecosystems. Evaluating this policy is therefore pivotal to identify and reproduce best practices. However, the habitat aspect of this policy has so far not been systematically assessed. To make up for this lacuna, we take advantage of decision-aiding methodologies to introduce a new normative framework. According to this framework, a conservation policy is positively evaluated if it contributes to conservation, is science-based, operational, and legitimate. Based on an exploration of the published literature and unpublished reports and databases, we identify knowledge gaps plaguing the European habitat conservation policy. We argue that, due to these knowledge gaps, the contribution of this policy to the conservation of habitats is unproven, it is not science-based, not operational and not legitimate. Our study draws heavily on the French implementation. Analyzing this example, we highlight knowledge gaps that carry lessons for European conservation policies as a whole, but also for conservation initiatives focused on habitats in a broader geographical and political context. We then identify concrete means to strengthen habitats conservation policies.

International audience ; The European Habitat Directive encompasses a conservation policy devoted to conserve habitats rather than single species. This ambition has strong ecological justifications, and inspires other initiatives such as the IUCN red list of ecosystems. Evaluating this policy is therefore pivotal to identify and reproduce best practices. However, the habitat aspect of this policy has so far not been systematically assessed. To make up for this lacuna, we take advantage of decision-aiding methodologies to introduce a new normative framework. According to this framework, a conservation policy is positively evaluated if it contributes to conservation, is science-based, operational, and legitimate. Based on an exploration of the published literature and unpublished reports and databases, we identify knowledge gaps plaguing the European habitat conservation policy. We argue that, due to these knowledge gaps, the contribution of this policy to the conservation of habitats is unproven, it is not science-based, not operational and not legitimate. Our study draws heavily on the French implementation. Analyzing this example, we highlight knowledge gaps that carry lessons for European conservation policies as a whole, but also for conservation initiatives focused on habitats in a broader geographical and political context. We then identify concrete means to strengthen habitats conservation policies.

International audience ; The European Habitat Directive encompasses a conservation policy devoted to conserve habitats rather than single species. This ambition has strong ecological justifications, and inspires other initiatives such as the IUCN red list of ecosystems. Evaluating this policy is therefore pivotal to identify and reproduce best practices. However, the habitat aspect of this policy has so far not been systematically assessed. To make up for this lacuna, we take advantage of decision-aiding methodologies to introduce a new normative framework. According to this framework, a conservation policy is positively evaluated if it contributes to conservation, is science-based, operational, and legitimate. Based on an exploration of the published literature and unpublished reports and databases, we identify knowledge gaps plaguing the European habitat conservation policy. We argue that, due to these knowledge gaps, the contribution of this policy to the conservation of habitats is unproven, it is not science-based, not operational and not legitimate. Our study draws heavily on the French implementation. Analyzing this example, we highlight knowledge gaps that carry lessons for European conservation policies as a whole, but also for conservation initiatives focused on habitats in a broader geographical and political context. We then identify concrete means to strengthen habitats conservation policies.