Interactions between scientific uncertainty and flood management decisions: Two case studies in Colorado

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 ,&nbsp;Rebecca E. Morss ,&nbsp;Olga V. Wilhelmi ,&nbsp;Eve Gruntfest ,&nbsp;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.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
科学不确定性与洪水管理决策之间的相互作用:科罗拉多州的两个案例研究
美国的洪水管理政策依赖于有关极端降水和径流的频率和强度的科学信息。然而,由于气象和水文过程的复杂性,现有的信息本质上是不确定的。在山区,由于当地气候、地形、土壤特征和土地利用的不同,即使在很短的距离内,洪水风险也会有很大差异。本文描述了科罗拉多州的两个案例,其中政策制定者面临着相互矛盾的科学估计:柯林斯堡洪泛区地图的修订和樱桃溪大坝的修改。案例研究表明,不确定性可能对监管程序、公共安全和成本产生重大影响。该分析考虑了洪水管理过程中不同参与者的不同观点,说明了科学问题和价值问题之间的不确定性之间的相互作用。它表明,试图提供单一的“最佳”评估并不一定能满足所有涉众的决策需求。结论表明,在向决策者提供科学估算时,有必要加强关于不确定性的沟通。此外,在高度争议的决定中,可能有必要重新组织讨论,以考虑科学不确定性所引起的价值问题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Publisher's Note Is staying at home the safest option during bushfires? Historical evidence for an Australian approach A potential crisis in wildfire emergency response capability? Australia's volunteer firefighters Mitigation of the heat island effect in urban New Jersey Interactions between scientific uncertainty and flood management decisions: Two case studies in Colorado
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1