Structuring international development decisions: confronting trade-offs between land use and community development in Costa Rica

I think, therefore I act, Revisited: Building a stronger foundation for risk analysis

Actively open-minded thinking (AOT) is a thinking style in which people engaged in judgment and decision-making actively seek out and then evaluate information in a manner that is intentionally disconnected from their prior beliefs and motivations and in line with self-perceptions of autonomy. Actively open-minded thinkers have been observed to make both more accurate judgments about the magnitude of risks and more evidence-based decisions under uncertainty in a wide range of situations such as climate change and politics. In addition, actively open-minded thinkers functioning in domains where they lack a desired level of knowledge are open to "outsourcing" the job of critical reasoning thinking to credible experts; in other words, they are better able to gauge who is trustworthy and then rely on the insights of these trustworthy others to help them reach a conclusion. We report results from a follow-up to research previously published in Risk Analysis that confirms these tenets in the context of COVID-19. We then extend these results to offer a series of recommendations for strengthening the process and outcomes of risk analysis: leveraging the latent norm of autonomy and personal agency that underpins AOT, activating or engaging with approaches to reasoning-such as decision structuring-that are in line with AOT, and working upstream and downstream of risk analysis to establish AOT as a norm of its own.

No perfect tools: trade-offs of sustainability principles and user requirements in designing support tools for land-use decisions between greenfields and brownfields

The EU Soil Thematic Strategy calls for the application of sustainability concepts and methods as part of an integrated policy to prevent soil degradation and to increase the re-use of brownfields. Although certain general principles have been proposed for the evaluation of sustainable development, the practical application of sustainability assessment tools (SATs) is contingent on the actual requirements of tool users, e.g. planners or investors, to pick up such instruments in actual decision making. We examine the normative sustainability principles that need to be taken into account in order to make sound land-use decisions between new development on greenfield sites and the regeneration of brownfields - and relate these principles to empirically observed user requirements and the properties of available SATs. In this way we provide an overview of approaches to sustainability assessment. Three stylized approaches, represented in each case by a typical tool selected from the literature, are presented and contrasted with (1) the norm-oriented Bellagio sustainability principles and (2) the requirements of three different stakeholder groups: decision makers, scientists/experts and representatives of the general public. The paper disentangles some of the inevitable trade-offs involved in seeking to implement sustainable land-use planning, i.e. between norm orientation and holism, broad participation and effective communication. It concludes with the controversial assessment that there are no perfect tools and that to be meaningful the user requirements of decision makers must take precedence over those of other interest groups in the design of SATs.