Avoiding climate change uncertainties in Strategic Environmental Assessment |
| |
| Institution: | 1. The Danish Centre for Environmental Assessment, Aalborg University-Copenhagen, A.C. Meyers Vænge 15, 2450 København SV, Denmark;2. The Danish Centre for Environmental Assessment, Aalborg University, Skibbrogade 5, 1. Sal, 9000 Aalborg, Denmark;1. School of Natural Resources and the Environment, The University of Arizona, 325 Biological Sciences East, 1311 E. 4th St., Tucson, AZ 85721, USA;2. Udall Center for Studies in Public Policy, The University of Arizona, 803 E. 1st St., Tucson, AZ 85721, USA;3. James E. Rogers College of Law, The University of Arizona, 1201 E. Speedway, Tucson, AZ 85721, USA;1. Appraisal Center for Environment and Engineering, MEP, China;2. Tianjin Academy of Social Sciences, China;3. Tianjin Environmental Monitoring Center, China;4. School of the Built Environment, Oxford Brookes University, United Kingdom;5. Research center for Strategic Environmental Assessment, Nankai University, China;1. Centre for Management Studies (CEG-IST), Técnico Lisboa, University of Lisbon, Avenida Rovisco Pais, no. 1, Departamento de Engenharia Civil, Sala 3.42, 1049-001 Lisboa, Portugal;2. Centre for Management Studies (CEG-IST), Técnico Lisboa, University of Lisbon, Avenida Rovisco Pais, no. 1, Departamento de Engenharia Civil, Sala 3.41.1, 1049-001 Lisboa, Portugal;1. Department of Civil, Construction-Architectural and Environmental Engineering, University of L''Aquila, L''Aquila, Italy;2. Department of Architecture, University ‘G. D''Annunzio’ Chieti-Pescara, Pescara, Italy |
| |
| Abstract: | This article is concerned with how Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) practice handles climate change uncertainties within the Danish planning system. First, a hypothetical model is set up for how uncertainty is handled and not handled in decision-making. The model incorporates the strategies ‘reduction’ and ‘resilience’, ‘denying’, ‘ignoring’ and ‘postponing’. Second, 151 Danish SEAs are analysed with a focus on the extent to which climate change uncertainties are acknowledged and presented, and the empirical findings are discussed in relation to the model. The findings indicate that despite incentives to do so, climate change uncertainties were systematically avoided or downplayed in all but 5 of the 151 SEAs that were reviewed. Finally, two possible explanatory mechanisms are proposed to explain this: conflict avoidance and a need to quantify uncertainty. |
| |
| Keywords: | |
| 本文献已被 ScienceDirect 等数据库收录！ |
|
