Mary W. Downton , Rebecca E. Morss , Olga V. Wilhelmi , Eve Gruntfest , Melissa L. Higgins
{"title":"Interactions between scientific uncertainty and flood management decisions: Two case studies in Colorado","authors":"Mary W. Downton , Rebecca E. Morss , Olga V. Wilhelmi , Eve Gruntfest , Melissa L. Higgins","doi":"10.1016/j.hazards.2006.05.003","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Flood management policies in the United States rely on scientific information about the frequency and intensity of extreme precipitation and runoff. Yet, the available information is inherently uncertain because of the complexity of meteorological and hydrological processes. In mountainous areas, flood risk can vary greatly even within short distances depending on local climate, topography, soil characteristics, and land use. This paper describes two Colorado cases in which policy makers were presented with conflicting scientific estimates: revision of the Fort Collins floodplain map and modification of the Cherry Creek Dam. The case studies demonstrate that uncertainty can have substantial impacts on regulatory processes, public safety, and costs. The analysis considers the differing perspectives of various participants in the flood management processes, illustrating the interplay between uncertainties attributable to scientific issues and values issues. It suggests that attempts to provide a single “best” estimate do not necessarily meet the decision needs of all stakeholders. Conclusions indicate a need to improve communication about uncertainty when scientific estimates are provided to decision makers. Furthermore, in highly controversial decisions, it may be necessary to reframe the discussion to consider the values issues raised by scientific uncertainty.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":100587,"journal":{"name":"Global Environmental Change Part B: Environmental Hazards","volume":"6 3","pages":"Pages 134-146"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2005-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.hazards.2006.05.003","citationCount":"51","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Global Environmental Change Part B: Environmental Hazards","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1464286706000039","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 51
Abstract
Flood management policies in the United States rely on scientific information about the frequency and intensity of extreme precipitation and runoff. Yet, the available information is inherently uncertain because of the complexity of meteorological and hydrological processes. In mountainous areas, flood risk can vary greatly even within short distances depending on local climate, topography, soil characteristics, and land use. This paper describes two Colorado cases in which policy makers were presented with conflicting scientific estimates: revision of the Fort Collins floodplain map and modification of the Cherry Creek Dam. The case studies demonstrate that uncertainty can have substantial impacts on regulatory processes, public safety, and costs. The analysis considers the differing perspectives of various participants in the flood management processes, illustrating the interplay between uncertainties attributable to scientific issues and values issues. It suggests that attempts to provide a single “best” estimate do not necessarily meet the decision needs of all stakeholders. Conclusions indicate a need to improve communication about uncertainty when scientific estimates are provided to decision makers. Furthermore, in highly controversial decisions, it may be necessary to reframe the discussion to consider the values issues raised by scientific uncertainty.