Suchergebnisse

Zsfassung in niederl. Sprache

The Earth's entomofauna seems in an ongoing state of collapse. Insect decline could pose a global risk to key insect-mediated ecosystem functions and services such as soil and freshwater functions (nutrient cycling, soil formation, decomposition, and water purification), biological pest control, pollination services and food web support that all are critical to ecosystem functioning, human health and human survival. At present the attention for insect decline is low in all domains, ranging from scientific research to policy-making to nature conservation. Scientists made urgent calls to prioritise insect conservation. An international treaty for global pollinator stewardship and pollinator ecosystem restoration is urgently needed to counteract the current crisis. A review of insect pollinator conservation policies found that despite scientific calls and public outcry to develop polices that addresses declines, governments have not delivered such legislation, nor have they met basic monitoring needs recommended by experts.

Abstract This paper proposes a method for in-depth mapping of heterogeneity in expert judgment, in the evaluation of the quality of epidemiological studies used in regulatory chemical risk assessment. Whereas consensus in scientific advisory groups provides legitimation for subsequent political action, it can also have unintended effects on the quality of regulatory risk assessment. Based on empirical testing of our method, called Qualichem_epi, with ten experts and two epidemiological case studies about bisphenol A (BPA)'s effects on human health, we have shown that expert judgment plays an essential role in managing uncertainty and deciding what "quality" of a study actually means. We found substantial heterogeneity of scientists' judgments about the quality of epidemiological studies, even if the same criteria were used for the assessment. This heterogeneity is not present anymore in reports produced by expert groups, where results are presented under the collective signature of all the scientists involved. We argue that flattening heterogeneity can be an important problem when it is not the result of true scientific agreement but only a secondary effect of consensus-based working procedures of agencies that experts have to follow. Qualichem_epi provides an easy to understand color-based picture of both majority and minority opinions in a scientific advisory group. We suggest that it could be used on a regular basis for communicating quality assessments of epidemiological studies in regulatory chemical risk assessment.

Climate services' main function has been to provide technical scientific evidence for decision-making in formal institutions. This article makes a case for recognising the diverse functions and meanings of climate services across the spectrum of institutions constituting climate governance. The article reports on research that identified climate services needs for building resilience in Bergen city (Norway) through a collaborative back-casting workshop with actors variously engaged in climate governance. Participants' discussions raised four key observations on climate services. First, they saw the potential for using climate information in a diverse set of formal and informal institutions. Second, they considered how to adapt information to these diverse settings. Third, they looked at how information could enhance existing initiatives, rather than demanding 'new' products. And fourth, participants' proposed climate services highlighted their diverse functions, and led the authors to suggest classifying services according to their principal functions. The article finishes by proposing a field of 'social climate services' that configures relationships between scientists and social actors, built on technologies of humility, for enriching the ongoing culturally and politically charged debates and practices around climatic change in informal institutional settings. Social climate services function can include enabling people to voice their concerns, learn, critically reflect on changes to culture and identity, build social networks, and try out new practices.

There are numerous challenges to mobilising high quality knowledge in support of climate adaptation. Urgent adaptive action often has to be taken on the basis of imperfect information, with the risk of maladaptive consequences. These issues of knowledge quality can be particularly acute in vulnerable developing countries like Bangladesh, where there can be less capacity for producing and using climate knowledge. This paper argues that climate change adaptation in places like Bangladesh would benefit from a more self-conscious critical review of the knowledge systems mobilised in support of action, and suggests that 'knowledge quality assessment' (KQA) tools can structure this review. It presents a desktop assessment of information used for climate change adaptation projects in Sylhet Division in Bangladesh, steered by the six themes of the 'Guidance for Uncertainty Assessment and Communication' KQA tool. The assessment found important differences in approaches to mobilising knowledge, particularly between governmental and non-governmental organisations (NGOs). It demonstrated that problem framing has an impact on project success; projects that adopt a narrow techno-scientific framing can lead to significant adverse side effects. Recognising this some projects are engaging stakeholders in framing adaptation. It found a lack of national policy Guidance on the use of indicators or appraisal of uncertainty, seeing government agencies fall back on their risk-based calculations, and NGOs attempt to identify indicators and uncertainties via community engagement, with mixed success. Moreover, the adaptation knowledge base is relatively disintegrated, despite tentative steps toward its consolidation and appraisal, potentially related to on-going friction impeding vertical communication within government, and horizontal communication between government, NGOs and stakeholders. This all suggests that the Bangladeshi practices at the adaptation science-policy interface can benefit from reflection on KQA criteria; reflection ...

Epidemiology and quantitative microbiological risk assessment are disciplines in which the same public health measures are estimated, but results differ frequently. If large, these differences can confuse public health policymakers. This article aims to identify uncertainty sources that explain apparent differences in estimates for Campylobacter spp. incidence and attribution in the Netherlands, based on four previous studies (two for each discipline). An uncertainty typology was used to identify uncertainty sources and the NUSAP method was applied to characterize the uncertainty and its influence on estimates. Model outcomes were subsequently calculated for alternative scenarios that simulated very different but realistic alternatives in parameter estimates, modeling, data handling, or analysis to obtain impressions of the total uncertainty. For the epidemiological assessment, 32 uncertainty sources were identified and for QMRA 67. Definitions (e.g., of a case) and study boundaries (e.g., of the studied pathogen) were identified as important drivers for the differences between the estimates of the original studies. The range in alternatively calculated estimates usually overlapped between disciplines, showing that proper appreciation of uncertainty can explain apparent differences between the initial estimates from both disciplines. Uncertainty was not estimated in the original QMRA studies and underestimated in the epidemiological studies. We advise to give appropriate attention to uncertainty in QMRA and epidemiological studies, even if only qualitatively, so that scientists and policymakers can interpret reported outcomes more correctly. Ideally, both disciplines are joined by merging their strong respective properties, leading to unified public health measures.

About a decade ago, the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (PBL) unwittingly embarked on a transition from a technocratic model of science advising to the paradigm of ''post-normal science'' (PNS). In response to a scandal around uncertainty management in 1999, a Guidance for ''Uncertainty Assessment and Communication'' was developed with advice from the initiators of the PNS concept and was introduced in 2003. This was followed in 2007 by a ''Stakeholder Participation'' Guidance. In this article, the authors provide a combined insider/outsider perspective on the transition process. The authors assess the extent to which the PNS paradigm has delivered new approaches in the agency's practice and analyze two projects—on long-term options for Dutch sustainable development policy and for urban development policy—the latter in somewhat more detail. The authors identify several paradoxes PBL encounters when putting the PNS concept into practice. It is concluded that an openness to other styles of work than the technocratic model has become visible, but that the introduction of the PNS paradigm is still in its early stage.