More is not always better: Coping with ambiguity in natural resources management

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2010.08.029Get rights and content

Abstract

Coping with ambiguities in natural resources management has become unavoidable. Ambiguity is a distinct type of uncertainty that results from the simultaneous presence of multiple valid, and sometimes conflicting, ways of framing a problem. As such, it reflects discrepancies in meanings and interpretations. Under the presence of ambiguity it is not clear what problem is to be solved, who should be involved in the decision processes or what is an appropriate course of action. Despite the extensive literature about methodologies and tools to deal with uncertainty, not much has been said about how to handle ambiguities. In this paper, we discuss the notions of framing and ambiguity, and we identify five broad strategies to handle it: rational problem solving, persuasion, dialogical learning, negotiation and opposition. We compare these approaches in terms of their assumptions, mechanisms and outcomes and illustrate each approach with a number of concrete methods.

Introduction

Increasingly over the past decade or more, uncertainty became a dominant issue in natural resources management (Pahl-Wostl, 2007). This situation forced decision makers and scientists to re-evaluate the way in which natural resources systems were studied and managed. This resulted in the development of new approaches, like adaptive or integrated natural resources management. They claim that to cope with uncertainty it is necessary to design flexible solutions that can adapt to unknown and changing conditions (Gunderson et al., 1995, Lee, 1999, Pahl-Wostl, 2007, Walters, 1986). Central to these developments was the idea that to cope with unforeseen consequences and emerging problems is necessary to build the capacity for collective action, favoring the consultation and engagement of multiple actors in decision-making processes (Ingram and Lejano, 2010, Lejano and Ingram, 2009).

However, this shift in focus towards more inclusive managing practices brought a new challenge. As different actors had a say in the decisions, it became clear that there can be more than one sensible way of framing a natural resources problem (Dewulf et al., 2005). Since, the way in which a problem is framed is not independent of the background, experience, societal position, constituency, values and beliefs of the actors (Brugnach et al., 2008). The presence of multiple frames may go unnoticed when frames remain separated in different social contexts (e.g. expert versus laypeople communities). However, when different actors meet, either in the form of protesting interest groups or consulted actors in a participatory process, what they provoke is an encounter of different frames. This situation results in ambiguity: it is no longer clear what exactly the problem is.

Ambiguity is a distinct type of uncertainty that results from the simultaneous presence of multiple valid, and sometimes conflicting, ways of framing a problem (Brugnach et al., 2008). As such, it reflects the discrepancies in meaning and interpretation that exists among different actors. When making decisions, the presence of ambiguity is important since, not only it can prevent the understanding of a problem, but also the articulation of its solution (Gray, 2003b). Therefore, any attempt to include multiple actors in a decision making process, as it is aimed by new managing paradigms, cannot overlook these potentially large differences in problem framing, which demands effective approaches to resolve ambiguity.

Despite the extensive literature about methodologies and tools to deal with uncertainty, not much has been said about how to handle ambiguities. Information gathering and use of expert knowledge are still among the most common responses to deal with ambiguity in decision making (Koppenjan and Klijn, 2004). Even though it can be argued that these strategies may reduce or eliminate ambiguity by providing a better problem understanding, more information can also worsen the confusion. Instead, the ambiguity introduced by the presence of a diversity of actors requires a different approach (Brugnach et al., 2008, Dewulf et al., 2005). One that allows coping with the unavoidable differences that, conflictive opinions, diversity of interests, values and beliefs may generate.

In this paper we explore different ways of coping with ambiguity. In particular, our goal is to provide a set of strategies that decision makers can use in order to efficiently handle situations in which multiple contradicting frames are simultaneously present. We also identify methods that can be used as support when implementing the strategies presented.

Next we look into more detail on the concepts of frame and ambiguity in decision-making processes and subsequently on strategies and tools to cope with them. We illustrate the concepts using examples from water management and present a case based on ground water management from the Upper Guadiana River Basin (UGB).

Section snippets

Frames, ambiguity and decision-making processes

The concept of frames has a long standing record in decision-making research (Tversky and Kahneman, 1981; Levin et al., 1998; De Martino et al., 2006), focusing on cognitive biases and decision heuristics. As understood in classical decision-making theory, a decision frame is a representation of the external world that is biased when compared with decision theoretical representations. As this research has shown, framing the same problem differently (but with the same expected utility) can

Strategies and methods to cope with ambiguity

Following Bouwen et al. (2006) we discuss five alternative action strategies and how they deal with ambiguity (see Table 1 for a summary of the strategies’ major characteristics). For each strategy we discuss specific methods and tools that can be implemented. Our aim is not to single out the best strategy but rather to provide a birds-eye overview of the range of possibilities, and to illustrate these with specific available methods.

Background information: the UGB situation

The UGB is located in the semi-arid region of Spain Central Plateau. This basin constitutes an important agricultural region that traditionally was based on vines, wheat and sheep rearing. These activities were restricted mainly to places where surface water was easily available. In the last decades, advances in irrigation technologies made ground water resources accessible, creating the possibility of a reliable supply of water for irrigation. This, in combination with economic incentives

Discussion

The coexistence of multiple frames is an unavoidable feature in natural resources management and can result in ambiguities that hinder the effectiveness and applicability of solutions. As shown in the UGB case, there are a lot of discrepancies and conflicting opinions about the situation the basin is facing with respect to managing natural resources. For some, there is a problem of excessive water consumption, for others one of water scarcity, yet for others the core of the problem resides in

Conclusion

In collective decision-making processes, as applied in natural resources management, the presence of multiple, and sometimes conflictive, frames is unavoidable. This situation gives rise to a type of uncertainty called ambiguity. Under the presence of ambiguity it is not always clear what the problem to be solved is, who should be involved in the decision processes or what is an appropriate way of action. As such, ambiguity is not a gap in factual knowledge, but an indication that there may be

Acknowledgements

The research for this article was executed as part of the NeWater project (Contract no 511179, 6th EU Framework Programme). The authors would like to thank the European Commission for their financial support and the NeWater consortium members for their generous collaboration. They also would like to thank the constructive comments of two anonymous reviewers.

References (49)

  • R. Lejano et al.

    Collaborative networks and new ways of knowing

    Environmental Science and Policy

    (2009)
  • I.P. Levin et al.

    All frames are not created equal: A typology and critical analysis of framing effects

    Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes

    (1998)
  • D. Armstrong

    Organization in the mind. Psychoanalysis, group relations and organizational consultancy

  • R.D. Benford et al.

    Framing processes and social movements: an overview and assessment

    Annual Review of Sociology

    (2000)
  • R. Bouwen et al.

    Participatory development of technology innovation projects: collaborative learning among different communities of practice

    Anales de la Universidad de Cuenca

    (2006)
  • M. Brugnach et al.

    Towards a relational concept of uncertainty: about knowing too little, knowing too differently and accepting not to know

    Ecology & Society

    (2008)
  • M. Brugnach et al.

    Towards a relational concept of uncertainty: including the human experience

  • B. De Martino et al.

    Frames, biases, and rational decision-making in the human brain

    Science

    (2006)
  • A. Dewulf et al.

    Integrated management of natural resources: dealing with ambiguous issues, multiple actors and diverging frames

    Water Science and Technology

    (2005)
  • A. Dewulf et al.

    How issues get framed and reframed when different communities meet: case study of a collaborative soil conservation initiative in the Ecuadorian Andes

    Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology

    (2004)
  • B. Gray

    Collaborating: Finding Common Ground for Multiparty Problems

    (1989)
  • B. Gray

    Framing of environmental disputes

  • B. Gray

    Freeze-Framing: the timeless dialogue of intractability surrounding Voyageurs National Park

  • B. Gray

    Strong opposition: frame-based resistance to collaboration

    Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology

    (2004)
  • B. Gray

    Framing in mediation and mediation as framing

  • Learning Together to Management Together – Improving Participation in Water Management

    (2005)
  • L. Hirschhorn

    Reworking Authority. Leading and Following in the Post-modern Organization

    (1997)
  • C. Huffington et al.

    Working Below the Surface. The Emotional Life of ContempoRary Organizations

    (2004)
  • H. Ingram et al.

    Transitions: transcending multiple ways of knowing water resourcess in the U.S

  • J. Koppenjan et al.

    Managing Uncertainties in Networks. A Network Approach to Problem Solving and Decision Making

    (2004)
  • M.R. Llamas

    Conflicts between wetland conservation and groundwater exploitation: two case histories in Spain

    Environmental Geology and Water Sciences

    (1988)
  • M.R. Llamas et al.

    Dimensions of sustainability in regard to groundwater resources: an overview

  • R.M. Llamas et al.

    Case study Guadiana

  • Cited by (0)

    View full text