Multiple framings of uncertainty shape adoption of reference states during reform of water policy

Abstract

There is growing recognition that multiple forms of uncertainty influence policy reform, but we need case studies illustrating how uncertainties influence reform, and strategies used to manage uncertainties in practice. We present a case study of how science was generated and incorporated into national water policy. We estimated turbidity (suspended fine sediment) reference states throughout the river network of New Zealand. A key decision-problem was: how region-specific should reference states be? We developed classifications of the national river network that grouped rivers with similar turbidity regimes into classes at four spatial resolutions. Choosing a classification was complicated by ontological uncertainties. Scientific actors framed these ontological uncertainties in different ways, introducing framing uncertainties (‘ambiguities’) into the decision-making process. Well-established statistical techniques were employed to objectively identify the most parsimonious classification, but those techniques had little impact on decision-making. Reframing ontological uncertainties in terms of risks to management objectives was required to reconcile divergent frames, and showed that the classification with the highest resolution was the most credible option. Nonetheless, local governments highlighted that the most credible classification was not the most relevant or legitimate one in light of implementation constraints. The final decision was made against a backdrop of ambiguities, was partially subjective, and balanced trade-offs among credibility, relevance and legitimacy. Looking ahead, ambiguities could be reduced by framing decision problems in terms of risks to management objectives. A barrier to doing this is the short duration of policy windows, so translational science must take place when such windows are shut.