挪威的环境家庭保护

Miljφheimevernet,即环境家庭保护,是1991年10月在挪威开始的.……     

Genetically Modified (GM) Crops: Precautionary Science and Conflicts of Interests

Risk governance of GM plants and GMfood products is presently subject to heatedscientific and public controversies. Scientistsand representatives of the biotechnologyindustry have dominated debates concerningsafety issues. The public is suspicious withregard to the motives of scientists, companies,and political institutions involved. Thedilemmas posed are nested, embracing valuequestions, scientific uncertainty, andcontextual issues. The obvious lack of data andinsufficient information concerning ecologicaleffects call for application of thePrecautionary Principle (PP). There are,however, divergent opinions among scientistsabout the relevance of putative hazards,definition of potential ``adverse effects,' andwhether actions should be taken to preventharm. The reliance on the concept ofsubstantial equivalence in safety evaluation ofGM food is equally controversial. Consequently,value assumptions embedded in a scientificframework may be a barrier for employment ofthe PP. One of our major conclusions is thatprecautionary GMP usage requires riskassessment criteria yet undeveloped, as well asbroader and more long-term conceptions of risk,uncertainty, and ignorance. Conflicts ofinterest and public participation are otherissues that need to be taken intoconsideration. GMP governance regimes that arejustifiable from a precautionary and ethicalpoint of view must transcend traditionalscientific boundaries to include alternativescientific perspectives as well as publicinvolvement.     

Changing ideas in forestry: A comparison of concepts in Swedish and American forestry journals during the early twentieth and twenty-first centuries

By combining digital humanities text-mining tools and a qualitative approach, we examine changing concepts in forestry journals in Sweden and the United States (US) in the early twentieth and early twenty-first centuries. Our first hypothesis is that foresters at the beginning of the twentieth century were more concerned with production and less concerned with ecology than foresters at the beginning of the twenty-first century. Our second hypothesis is that US foresters in the early twentieth century were less concerned with local site conditions than Swedish foresters. We find that early foresters in both countries had broader—and often ecologically focused—concerns than hypothesized. Ecological concerns in the forestry literature have increased, but in the Nordic countries, production concerns have increased as well. In both regions and both time periods, timber management is closely connected to concerns about governance and state power, but the forms that governance takes have changed.     

What is most important for safety climate: The company belonging or the local working environment? – A study from the Norwegian offshore industry

Obtaining knowledge about factors affecting health, safety and environment (HSE) is of major interest to the petroleum industry, but there is currently a severe shortage of relevant studies. The aim of this study was to examine the relative influence of offshore installation (local working environment) and company belonging on employees’ opinions concerning occupational health and safety. We analyzed data from a safety climate survey answered by 4479 Norwegian offshore petroleum employees in 2005 on the dimensions “Safety prioritisation”, “Safety management and involvement”, “Safety versus production”, “Individual motivation”, “System comprehension” and “Competence” using one way analysis of variance (ANOVA), effect size and mixed model. The companies differed significantly for “Safety prioritisation”, “Safety versus production”, “Individual motivation”, “System comprehension” and “Competence”. The local offshore installation explained more of the safety climate than the company they were employed in or worked for did.     

A risk concept applicable for both probabilistic and non-probabilistic perspectives

In engineering risk assessments, probability is the common tool used to describe the epistemic uncertainties about unknown quantities. Probability is considered a main component of risk. However, a number of alternative approaches exist for representing and describing uncertainties in risk assessments, including possibility theory and evidence theory. For these approaches and theories a probability-based risk definition cannot in general serve as a conceptual framework for risk assessments. A broader risk perspective is required. The purpose of the present paper is to present such a perspective and show how both the probabilistic and the alternative approaches and theories can be supported by this perspective. The key feature of this perspective is that uncertainty replaces probability in the definition of risk.     

Perspectives on risk in a decision-making context – Review and discussion

There exist many perspectives on risk, and traditionally some of the perspectives have been seen as representing completely different frameworks, making the exchange of ideas and results difficult. Much of the existing discussions on risk perspectives have in our view lacked a sufficient level of precision on the fundamental ideas of risk assessments and management. For example, there is more than one line of thinking in risk analysis and assessment and mixing all approaches into one gives a rather meaningless discussion. In this presentation we summarise and categorise some of the common perspectives on risk, including an approach integrating aspects of technical and economic risk analyses, as well as social scientists’ perspectives on risk. For the different perspectives we clarify the meaning of key concepts such as risk and uncertainty. Special focus is placed on the different perspectives’ impact on decision-making. Implementation of the ALARP principle is used as an example to illustrate the differences.     

From the editors

Editorial Introduction

From the editors     

Reindeer in the Swedish mountains: an assessment of grazing impacts

During the last decade, several well-publicized grazing-related incidents of vegetation degradation have helped to form an official opinion of overutilization of some mountain areas and a concern that Swedish reindeer husbandry may not be ecologically sustainable. We examine these examples in a temporal and management perspective to assess the scale of impact on summer grazing grounds in the Swedish mountains. Long-term data on population dynamics of reindeer show no trend with fluctuations around 225 000 animals for the last century. Data on grazing effects from L?ngfj?llet (Dalarna) and Mitt?kl?ppen (H?rjedalen) are discussed in detail. We compare these data to the situation in Finnmark, Norway, and in northern Finland where reindeer husbandry in recent decades does not seem to have been ecologically sustainable. We conclude that large-scale overexploitation by reindeer in the Swedish mountains is not evident. However, strong grazing and trampling effects may be found around enclosures and fences.     

On the ontological status of the concept of risk

In this paper we review a set of frequently used risk definitions and analyze their ontological status, i.e. to what extent risk exists in itself independent of any specific assessor. According to some prevailing risk perspectives in the social sciences, risk exists as objective states of the world, but for other common risk perspectives the status of risk is not as clear, for example if risk is viewed as uncertainty about and severity of the consequences of an activity with respect to something that humans value. The principal aim of this paper is to contribute to a clarification of the issue in order to strengthen the foundations of the meaning of risk.     

On the critique of Beck’s view on risk and risk analysis

Ulrich Beck’s stand on risk and risk analysis has been challenged by many researchers. In this paper we look closer into some of the arguments used, with a main focus on the fundamental analysis carried out by Campbell and Currie. These two authors argue that Beck’s criticisms of the theory and practice of risk analysis are groundless: Beck’s understanding of what risk is, is badly flawed, and he misunderstands and distorts the use of probability in risk analysis. However, the analysis of Campbell and Currie is based on a set of premises, for example that risk is a function of probability and harm, and that risk really exists and one can be wrong about risk. Although such ideas are common, they can be challenged, and in the literature a number of alternative perspectives have been suggested. The purpose of the present paper is to study Beck’s stand on risk analysis and the related critique of Campbell and Currie and others, in view of some of these alternative perspectives on risk. To what extent is the critique then justified? The paper concludes that the case raised against Beck’s view is still strong and relevant, but has to be nuanced with respect to some important issues, for example concerning the distinction between belief and truth when it comes to risk. Allowing for spacious interpretations of some of Beck’s theses, the paper provides strengthened support for Beck’s view on these points.