hreat, at least in the near term, to those predator populations. Similarly, a poisoning program may involve threats to other, native species.
Which outcome is the most important in such cases? It is clear from these examples that there is rarely a “right” answer, as such an answer would require close alignment of knowledge and priorities on the basis of perfect information. In practice, trade-offs and priorities must be established in the face of imperfect knowledge. A range of approaches and methods has been developed to assist communities and policy makers approach this task.
In considering such approaches, we can consider a continuum between more and less predictable conflicting outcomes. The examples above are easily predicted (although specifying outcomes with accuracy may be difficult). Given significant uncertainty in predicting the behavior of natural systems, and of the reaction of groups and individuals to policy interventions, unpredictable outcomes conflicting with desired or expected outcomes are likely. For example, soil erosion and productivity were successfully addressed in the middle decades of the twentieth century through the “sub and super” regime of improved pastures. It was not predicted then that this would contribute to later problems of soil acidification, now being addressed through other management techniques. It would be arrogant to believe that current management practices will not have their own unpredictable results.
Unpredictable conflicting outcomes can be addressed in two general ways. First, research, investigation and forethought in designing policy and management responses can seek to diminish the prospect of unexpected and possibly negative outcomes. Second, monitoring and evaluation of policy and management, and ongoing monitoring of environmental conditions, will enhance abilities to observe and react to changes in the environment.
With more predictable conflicting outcomes a range of options exist. The following groups these into general categories and gives examples of ways to either identify or deal with multiple outcomes:
- Structures and processes within decision making systems can serve to increase understanding of multiple outcomes. This may be done by encouraging prior assessment of likely impacts, through required steps in decision making in statutes, regulations and operating procedures. Alternatively it may be done by ensuring connections between different agencies and interests so that a wide range of relevant perspectives and skills are involved in informing and designing policies and management approaches. This can involve such mechanisms as inter-departmental committees, inter-agency and inter-government processes, multi-stakeholder processes, integrated regional natural resource planning, or strategic environmental assessment.
- Research and monitoring can inform policy and management – the more we know about complex human-natural system interactions, the more likely it is that outcomes will be identified and we will be better able to deal with these.
- More specific assessment and analytical techniques can assist in either identifying or dealing with multiple outcomes:
- the identification of outcomes can be addressed through qualitative approaches, such as conceptual modeling of systems involving multiple stakeholders, or scenario projections. Alternatively, quantitative approaches may be used, such as formal modeling (eg a hydrological-ecological model of a catchment), risk assessment, or life cycle assessment of products.
- when multiple outcomes have been identified, exploration of implications, trade-offs and priorities may be carried out through methods such as multi-criteria assessments or deliberative approaches like a citizens jury.
The above indicates only a few options for addressing multiple and potentially conflicting environmental outcomes. All are valid under different circumstances, and the choice in a given situation will depend on the information available, interests and issues at stake, and especially the time available before decisions and actio