Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-c4f8m Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T21:32:40.190Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

10 - Managing risk, uncertainty, and irreversibility in biodiversity change

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 June 2014

Charles Perrings
Affiliation:
Arizona State University
Get access

Summary

The unknowns in the problem of biodiversity change

In summarizing the state of knowledge on biodiversity change in both natural and managed systems the major assessments (the Global Biodiversity Assessment, the MA, the IAASTD, and the Global Biodiversity Outlook) usefully clarified the limits of our current understanding of biodiversity change. They showed that our knowledge is still extremely patchy. We know much about changes in species richness and abundance for birds, for example, but little about many invertebrates. We have many data on the ecological consequences of biodiversity change in temperate grasslands, but relatively few on tropical forests. At the same time none of the assessments offers much insight into the value of one type of biodiversity change relative to another. In the opening chapters of Part II of this book I have considered what this means for the information needed to underpin management of biodiversity change. Chapter 8 considers the information requirements of the main management options, adaptation and mitigation, and what this means for the way we project the causes, consequences, and character of biodiversity change. In Chapter 9, I address the issue of valuation, and the challenges involved in generating information that can inform macro-economic policy.

In the best of all worlds, however, we will still be called on to make decisions on the basis of incomplete information. There are two dimensions to the problem of biodiversity change that complicate both calculation of what it costs society and development of options for its management: the irreversibility of some aspects of biodiversity change and the fundamental uncertainty that induces. For all practical purposes the extinction of species is forever. Its effects are unknown and unknowable at the moment it occurs. People undertaking activities that change either the survival prospects of a species or its range cannot imagine all possible consequences of their actions. Nor are they able to assign probabilities to the consequences they can imagine. Similarly, it is not possible to reverse the changes wrought by many invasive species, or to assess the potential costs and benefits of actions that irreversibly affect the future evolution of the system.

Type
Chapter
Information
Our Uncommon Heritage
Biodiversity Change, Ecosystem Services, and Human Wellbeing
, pp. 309 - 336
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2014

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Arrow, K. J. and Fisher, A. C. (1974) Environmental preservation, uncertainty and irreversibility. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 88, 312–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ashford, N. A. (2007) The legacy of the precautionary principle in US law: the rise of cost-benefit analysis and risk assessment as undermining factors in health, safety and environmental protection. Implementing the Precautionary Principle: Approaches from the Nordic Countries, the EU and the USA (ed. Sadeleer, N. D.), pp. 352–378. Earthscan, London.Google Scholar
Bishop, R. C. (1978) Endangered species and uncertainty: the economics of a safe minimum standard. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 60, 10–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chichilnisky, G. and Heal, G. M. (1998) Economic returns from the biosphere. Nature, 391, 629–630.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ciriacy-Wantrup, S. V. (1952) Resources Conservation. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.Google Scholar
Conrad, J. M. (1980) Quasi-option value and the expected value of information. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 94, 813–820.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooney, R. and Dickson, B. (eds.) (2005) Biodiversity and the Precautionary Principle: Risk and Uncertainty in Conservation and Sustainable Use. Earthscan, London.
Dixit, A. K. (1992) Invesment and hysteresis. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 6, 107–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fishburn, P. (1988) Non-Linear Preference and Utility Theory. Wheatsheaf, Brighton.Google Scholar
Fisher, A. C., Krutilla, J. V. and Cicchetti, C. J. (1972) The economics of environmental preservation: a theoretical and empirical analysis. American Economic Review, 62, 605–619.Google Scholar
Food and Drug Administration (2010) Regulatory Procedures Manual. US Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, MD.Google Scholar
Gollier, C. and Treich, N. (2003) Decision-making under scientific uncertainty: the economics of the precautionary principle. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 27, 77–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gollier, C., Jullien, B. and Treich, N. (2000) Scientific progress and irreversibility: an economic interpretation of the “precautionary principle.”Journal of Public Economics, 75, 229–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hanemann, W. M. (1989) Information and the concept of option value. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 16, 23–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harremoës, P., Gee, D., MacGarvin, M., Stirling, A., Keys, J., Wynne, B. and Guedes, V. S. (2001) Late lessons from early warnings: the precautionary principle. Environment Issue Report No. 22. European Environment Agency, Copenhagen.Google Scholar
Henry, C. (1974) Investment decisions under uncertainty: the irreversibility effect. American Economic Review, 64, 1006–1012.Google Scholar
IHR (2005) International Health Regulations. World Health Organization, Geneva.Google Scholar
IPCC (2007) Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Geneva.Google Scholar
Iverson, T. (2008) Cooperation amid Controversy: Decision Support for Climate Change Policy. University of Wisconsin at Madison, Department of Economics.Google Scholar
Iverson, T.(2012) Communicating trade-offs amid controversial science: decision support for climate policy. Ecological Economics, 77, 74–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iverson, T. and Perrings, C. (2012) Precaution and proportionality in the management of global environmental change. Global Environmental Change, 22, 161–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, K. E., Patel, N., Levy, M., Storeygard, A., Balk, D., Gittleman, J. L. and Daszak, P. (2008) Global trends in emerging infectious diseases. Nature, 451, 990–993.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kahneman, D. and Tversky, A. (1979) Prospect theory: an analysis of decision making under risk. Econometrica, 47, 263–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Katzman, M. T. (1988) Pollution liability insurance and catastrophic environmental risk. Journal of Risk and Insurance, 55, 75–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Katzner, D. W. (1998) Time, Ignorance and Uncertainty in Economic Models. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, MI.Google Scholar
Klibanoff, P., Marinacci, M. and Mukerji, S. (2005) A smooth model of decision making under ambiguity. Econometrica, 73, 1849–1892.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klibanoff, P., Marinacci, M. and Mukerji, S.(2009) Recursive smooth ambiguity preferences. Journal of Economic Theory, 144, 930–976.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loomis, J. and du Vair, P. (1993) Evaluating the effect of alternative risk communication devices. Land Economics, 69, 287–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDaniels, T., Kamlet, M. and Fischer, G. (1992) Risk perception and the value of safety. Risk Analysis, 12, 495–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perrings, C. and Brock, W. (2009) Irreversibility in economics. Annual Review of Resource Economics, 1, 219–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pigeon, N., Hood, C., Jones, D., Turner, B. and Gibson, R. (1992) Risk perception. Risk: Analysis, Perceptions and Management. Report of a Royal Society Study Group. Royal Society, London.Google Scholar
Pindyck, R. S. (1991) Irreversibility, uncertainty and investment. Journal of Economic Literature, 29, 1110–1148.Google Scholar
Pindyck, R. S.(2000) Irreversibilities and the timing of environmental policy. Resource and Energy Economics, 22, 223–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plott, C. (1996) Rational individual behaviour in markets and social choice processes: the discovered preference hypothesis. The Rational Foundations of Economic Behaviour (ed. Arrow, K., Colombatto, E., Perleman, M. and Schmidt, C.), pp. 225–250. Macmillan, London.Google Scholar
Quiggin, J. (1982) A theory of anticipated utility. Journal of Economic Behaviour and Organisation, 3, 323–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rockstrom, J., Steffen, W., Noone, K., Persson, Å., Chapin, F. S., Lambin, E. F., Lenton, T. M., Scheffer, M., Folke, C., Schellnhuber, H. J., Nykvist, B., de Wit, C. A., Hughes, T., van der Leeuw, S., Rodhe, H., Sörlin, S., Snyder, P. K., Costanza, R., Svedin, U., Falkenmark, M., Karlberg, L., Corell, R. W., Fabry, V. J., Hansen, J., Walker, B., Liverman, D., Richardson, K., Crutzen, P. and Foley, J. A. (2009) A safe operating space for humanity. Nature, 461, 472–475.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sadeleer, N. (ed.) (2007) Implementing the Precautionary Principle: Approaches from the Nordic Countries, the EU and the USA. Earthscan, London.
Savage, L. J. (1954) The Foundations of Statistics. Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
Shackle, G. L. S. (1955) Uncertainty in Economics. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Simon, H. A. (1957) Administrative Behaviour. Macmillan, New York.Google Scholar
Starmer, C. (2000) Development in non-expected utility theory: the hunt for a descriptive theory of choice under risk. Journal of Economic Literature, 38, 332–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, P. (1991) The precautionary principle and the prevention of pollution. ECOS, 124, 41–46.Google Scholar
Tversky, A. and Kahneman, D. (1992) Advances in prospect theory: cumulative representation of uncertainty. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 5, 297–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ulph, A. and Ulph, D. (1997) Global warming, irreversibility and learning. Economic Journal, 107, 636–650.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
UNEP-WCMC and the IUCN World Commission on Protected Areas (2012) World Database on Protected Areas, available at (accessed 2012).
United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (1992) Rio Declaration on Environment and Development. UNEP, Nairobi.Google Scholar
World Trade Organization (1995) The WTO Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS Agreement). World Trade Organization, Geneva.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×