Optimización de la potencia dedicada a la tecnología HSDPA

Clarifying relevant values, knowledge and uncertainty around management issues is central to effective planning. It can allow planners to avoid the well-known ‘hammer problem’ – in which every problem looks like a nail to those who only have (or know how to use) a hammer. By describing problems well we can define approaches to analysis and then options that are fit for purpose.

The framework and approaches in this section aim to do exactly that. They have been developed by SCARP with NRM planners, specifically for NRM planning for climate change. They are also informed through engagement with a broad literature across policy analysis (Hoppe, 2011) and applied science and technology studies (Cash et al., 2003; Sarewitz, 2004;

Sarewitz and Pielke Jr., 2007) as well as research on climate change adaptation (Leith et al., 2014a). They have been further developed and tested through workshops and other activities with Southern Slopes NRM planners. They are targeted to build on and restructure existing understanding of the current situation in relation to assets, systems or sub-regions.

The theoretical work on which we have developed this original approach to current issue assessment is by no means uncontested, yet the SCARP team along with our NRM partners have identified the approach below as a useful means for NRM organisations to focus discussions for adaptation. Like much good adaptation

work it is experimental and open to ongoing refinement.

How can assessment of the current situation help to define adaptation options?

Planning for climate change adaptation can benefit when a knowledge base is developed and updated to enable ongoing learning and adaptive management.

Such a knowledge base should include relevant and credible information and be able to be updated as new information arises. For instance, a knowledge base might summarise current scientific

understanding as well as assumptions that are being made or tested through application of particular actions or policies. Recognising the importance of knowledge management, many regional NRM organisations have developed knowledge bases and ways of managing knowledge, information and data.

As we detail elsewhere, this framework can help to:

 Identify what forms of futures analysis will be most appropriate for a given management context (see ‎C.5 Analysing possible futures), and;

 Establish the sorts of options that might be best adopted to achieve outcomes and a good process for identifying them (see ‎0‎D.2.1 Developing pathways of adaptation options for NRM).

The framework enables work on these key adaptation planning activities by providing a platform to

systematically consider or analyse dimensions recurrently. These are:

i. The number of stakeholders;

ii. The degree of values divergence among stakeholders (how strongly they agree or disagree on goals/objectives);

B. Understanding the current situation

The aim of this section is to provide a means of understanding the current situation in NRM as the

basis for contextualising future options and planning. Current situation assessment is set up here to

enable diagnosis of tools and approaches that are relevant and useful in any given situation, as well

as to feed into decision-making and deliberation. Policy environments relating to international,

federal and state arenas are summarised.

iii. The extent of scientific uncertainty associated with defining or achieving the goals or objectives;

iv. The scale of the issue (e.g. local, sub-regional, across whole of region);

v. The capacity constraints, enablers and potential barriers;

vi. The degree of urgency associated with the objective.

While each of these dimensions can inform the analysis of futures and identification of adaptation options, it is worth highlighting that the first three (number of stakeholders, values divergence among them, and the degree of scientific uncertainty) recur in the definitions of ‘wicked’ (Ison et al., 2014b; Rittel and Webber, 1973) or ‘post-normal’ (Funtowicz and Ravetz, 1993) problems.

Using these three dimensions, the typology of problems outlined in Table ‎B.1 (and see examples in Table ‎B.2) draws on the work of Hoppe (2011), Turnhout et al. (2013) and Leith et al. (2014a). It suggests that when high levels of agreement about goals exist alongside high levels of scientific certainty about issues associated with these goals, problems can be considered as ‘computational’. Computational problems are amenable to technical resolution, providing there are sufficient resources. NRM problems and associated desired objectives are rarely of this type. When they are, it is usually because they are tightly focussed on very specific issues (e.g. a single species), and involve little contestation about values (e.g. wildlife conservation within an existing reserve system).

When there is a high degree of scientific certainty but disagreement about goals, technical intervention mainly enables a better understanding of trade-offs between competing objectives or goals of different stakeholders. The work of bargaining along with defining common ground and creatively redefining problems can be very useful, especially through participatory or inclusive processes which allow for thorough problem definition and credible assessment of options.

Table ‎B.1 Framework and typology of issue types on two axes of scientific certainty and level of agreement / values divergence (following Hoppe, 2011)

Table ‎B.2 Framework and typology with NRM objectives to exemplify the different problem types.

In situations where there is a high degree of scientific uncertainty but where values divergence is low, judgement is required and options developed will often themselves be targeted to adaptive

management or more formal experimentation through specific interventions. Evaluation is critical to better understand systems and the way they are affected by interventions.

Inspiration, leadership and substantial skill is needed to manage issues where there is both high levels of uncertainty and substantial values divergence. Such issues are often considered as ‘wicked problems’ and are not amenable to simple technical solutions. Rather technical information can help to open up problems, signalling potential issues and contributing to discussion where possible. These are problems that often result in the politicisation of science, scientists or scientific organisations.

This typology allows for systematic identification of appropriate broad forms of policy processes, application of research, roles for scientists and contextually useable knowledge (Table ‎B.3). It allows planners to consider if and how objectives can be

made more tractable through reframing, research or various other interventions including relationship building, extension, and mediation.

How might assessment of the current situation be undertaken?

The prompting questions in Table ‎B.4 comprise an adaptable tool (also in an Excel™ spreadsheet available from the authors) to assist with current situation assessment for a specific objective, asset, system or sub-region.

By addressing the questions below within an NRM organisation a solid foundation for later stages of adaptation pathways planning is laid. Mapping of the current situation is an analytical activity that should be done without jumping straight to solutions or options, yet groups/individuals can keep in mind and ‘park’:

1. Issues that are affected by future change, or ones that will affect that change (this will help inform futures analysis); and

2. Opportunities for intervention / activity (this will help with options identification and evaluation).

Table ‎B.3 Issue types and associated policy processes and roles for scientists, as well as research and knowledge that is likely to be most useful

KEY DESCRIPTOR ISSUE TYPE

Computational Judgement Bargaining Inspiration

Policy process Linear and technical Negotiation Compromise Leadership, learning Role of scientist Solve problem Policy options Help to represent

issues

Signal issue

Type of research Disciplinary Inter-disciplinary Trans-disciplinary Contributions to dialogue Useable forms of

research

Data Contextualised

information / argument

Conceptual knowledge, well-grounded

Options and perspectives

Source: Adapted from Leith et al. (2014a)

Table ‎B.4 Key aspects that can usefully inform an understanding of the current situation and questions that can help in diagnosis for futures analysis, pathways development and MER

ASPECT PROMPTING QUESTIONS

Values divergence:

Where there are diverse groups of stakeholders with a lot at stake and a high degree of value divergence, options can be difficult to reconcile.

Values are often best accessed through identifying the goals, aspirations or concerns of stakeholder groups.

• How different are the values or interests among stakeholder groups?

• Which groups are supportive, opposed or neutral with regard to the objective?

• What are the areas of common ground and difference among stakeholder groups?

Number of stakeholders:

How many people really care about the issue, the impacts, cost of doing something or nothing, and who are these stakeholders?

• Who are the relevant stakeholder groups?

• Roughly how many stakeholders (individuals) in this group?

• Why does this group have an interest in the objective?

Systems uncertainty:

This relates to the scientific understanding, different forms of uncertainty and

‘knowledge gaps’ about the status, mechanisms, dynamics and interactions within the system, or related to the objective. For example there tends to be much lower systems uncertainty about sea-level rise (SLR) related climate change impacts than about systems that rely on seasonal rainfall change, such as mean stream flows. There is usually less systems uncertainty about the response to climate change in ‘simple’ systems, such as cropping systems, than there is in complex ecological systems (and a lot more investment has gone into the former).

• Reviewing relevant science and talking to key researchers will help establish where there is strong agreement and/or differences about ‘systems uncertainty’.

• List the key issues /problems associated with this objective I.e. what is it that makes this system/objective vulnerable to hazards/ impacts?

• Are there authoritative sources of information about the severity and extent of this issue?

• Are the key mechanisms / processes understood?

• How many studies are directly relevant to this issue?

• If there is more than a single study, is scientific evidence consistent?

• Are the main drivers of the system (function, structure, etc) understood and well agreed?

• Are ecological triggers or thresholds or tipping points known for the system?

• Are there defined approaches to manage this issue or to mitigate risks?

• Are these approaches applied (e.g. in development? trialled by some?

adopted by some?) Scale:

The spatial extent of an issue is critical to understanding and coordinating collective action to address it. It also allows us to identify where others may be already doing innovative things on similar issues in Australia and beyond.

• Identify geographically distinct manifestations of the issue

• Estimate proportion of the land area of the catchment / region to which this objective is relevant

• How are issues associated with this objective distributed (localised, subregional, region-wide)?

ASPECT PROMPTING QUESTIONS Capacity constraints:

Capacity can be defined as a function of the resources available to achieve a particular outcome and the capability to utilize those resources to achieve certain ends.

There are a variety of ways of assessing capacity and things that constrain and enable capacity (see the SCARP Adaptive Capacity Guide Jacobs et al., 2015 for more details).

• What aspects of human capital (characteristic of individuals, e.g. skills, education, etc.) enable and constrain action on this issue?

• What aspects of social capital (knowledge, networks, formal and informal rules that govern behaviour including policy, etc) enable and constrain action on this issue?

• What aspects of physical capital (technology, tools, and infrastructure) enable and constrain action on this issue?

• What aspects of financial capital (debt, equity, credit, funding environment) enable and constrain action on this issue?

Urgency:

In this context, urgency relates to the degree to which an issue needs to be dealt with soon. In discussion about urgency, other issues relating to the time horizons for decisions and the temporal consequences of them are important. For instance, some NRM investments, such as tree planting for connectivity, have long time horizons (the lifespan of the tree). These long time horizon decisions need to be informed as much by climate trends and projections as inter-annual climate variability.

• Is the issue considered as requiring urgent attention?

• Are decisions relating to this issue likely to have ongoing consequences (can these be listed)?

• What is the time horizon of the decision (i.e. seasonal, annual, inter-annual, decadal, multi-decadal)?

B.1.2 Considering the dimensions of