Why do we argue about risk? The invisibility of worldviews in marine decision-making

Abstract

The paper asks “why are we always arguing about risk?” It explores what drives risk perception in decision-making processes in Aotearoa New Zealand’s marine environment. The research’s holistic framing shows that the prevailing concern with risk and uncertainty (RU) issues in government and managerial settings deflects attention from and hides the background influences of worldviews. After introducing the invisibilities around RU and outlining worldview-based perceptions of risk, the paper turns to an empirical investigation focusing on deep-seabed mining investment in the context of Aotearoa’s Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf Act (Environmental Effects) 2012. Enacted as part of neoliberal reforms, the Act seeks to reduce environmental degradation in tandem with economic growth. A situated methodology examines a consenting process within this Act as a strategic site to establish expressions of RU and shaping invisibilities. Three key influences are revealed: the positionality of decision-makers, their disciplinary training, and the largely unknown filtering of environmental and economic options that come from 3 worldviews held in Aotearoa (dominant social paradigm, new environmental paradigm, Te Ao Māori). We contend hidden worldviews impact on economy–environment relations and ensuing economic and environmental practices and outcomes. This arises because they underpin and fuel debates around what RU are acceptable and how benefits should be distributed (public vs. private benefits investment decisions, and economy vs. environment). Unless we recognize and understand these hidden influences, we simply cannot work with them. This insight has major implications for how RU ideas might be framed and navigated in emerging policy settings.