Elisabeth Graffy

Linking environmental risk assessment and communication: an experiment in co-evolving scientific and social knowledge

Dissemination of information to decision-makers and enhanced methods of public participation are often put forward as antidotes to a perceived disconnect between risk assessment and risk communication in the public domain. However, mechanisms that support both the provision of routine, timely and relevant technical knowledge to the public and meaningful opportunities for public participation in the evaluation and management of risk are few. We argue for the need to re-conceptualise the institutional context in which risk research and communication occur as one in which scientific knowledge and public understanding are co-evolutionary instead of independent or sequential. Here, we report on an experiment to promote co-evolution of environmental risk assessment and risk communication through the instrumental use of a web-based platform that dynamically links expert and public discourses through common information sources, linked scenario evaluations, and opportunities for iterative dialogue. On the basis of technical feasibility, research value and public communication capacity, we conclude that there is potential for further refinement of the methodologies presented here.

Expert Forecasts and the Emergence of Water Scarcity on Public Agendas

ABSTRACT Expert forecasts of worldwide water scarcity depict conditions that call for proactive, preventive, coordinated water governance, but they have not been matched by public agendas of commensurate scope and urgency in the United States. This disconnect can not be adequately explained without some attention to attributes of forecasts themselves. I propose that the institutional fragmentation of water expertise and prevailing patterns of communication about water scarcity militate against the formulation of a common public definition of the problem and encourage reliance on unambiguous crises to stimulate social and policy agenda setting. I do not argue that expert forecasts should drive public agendas deterministically, but if their purpose is to help prevent water crises (not just predict them), then a greater effort is needed to overcome the barriers to meaningful public scrutiny of expert claims and evaluation of water strategies presently in place.

A Framework for Quantitative Assessment of Impacts Related to Energy and Mineral Resource Development

Natural resource planning at all scales demands methods for assessing the impacts of resource development and use, and in particular it requires standardized methods that yield robust and unbiased results. Building from existing probabilistic methods for assessing the volumes of energy and mineral resources, we provide an algorithm for consistent, reproducible, quantitative assessment of resource development impacts. The approach combines probabilistic input data with Monte Carlo statistical methods to determine probabilistic outputs that convey the uncertainties inherent in the data. For example, one can utilize our algorithm to combine data from a natural gas resource assessment with maps of sage grouse leks and piñon-juniper woodlands in the same area to estimate possible future habitat impacts due to possible future gas development. As another example: one could combine geochemical data and maps of lynx habitat with data from a mineral deposit assessment in the same area to determine possible future mining impacts on water resources and lynx habitat. The approach can be applied to a broad range of positive and negative resource development impacts, such as water quantity or quality, economic benefits, or air quality, limited only by the availability of necessary input data and quantified relationships among geologic resources, development alternatives, and impacts. The framework enables quantitative evaluation of the trade-offs inherent in resource management decision-making, including cumulative impacts, to address societal concerns and policy aspects of resource development.