Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
http://hdl.handle.net/1942/43103Full metadata record
| DC Field | Value | Language |
|---|---|---|
| dc.contributor.advisor | Van Heusden, Bernard | - |
| dc.contributor.author | GORDEEVA, Yelena | - |
| dc.contributor.editor | Ginige, Tilak | - |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2024-06-11T08:23:00Z | - |
| dc.date.available | 2024-06-11T08:23:00Z | - |
| dc.date.issued | 2024 | - |
| dc.date.submitted | 2024-06-02T10:58:29Z | - |
| dc.identifier.citation | Ginige, Tilak; Green , Iain; Simons, Alain; McMullen, Joseph (Ed.). Social and scientific uncretianties in environmental law, Internsentia, p. 370 -384 | - |
| dc.identifier.isbn | 9781839705236 | - |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/1942/43103 | - |
| dc.description.abstract | Assuming that Green infrastrucutre (GI) design and implementation will always need to be based on less-than-complete knowledge and uncertain science, reducing our ability to make accurate predictions regarding the responses of species and ecological processes and/or other changes across GI areas, including climate change, as well as our ability to perform all steps from design to implementation of GI this contribution intends to provide the beginnings of an answer to the very complex question of how to manage uncertainty in GI design and implementation. Firstly, this Introduction to the contribution sets out the policy context, defines the problem, and states the research question ( section 1 ). Secondly, the “ Understanding of the ‘ Green Infrastructure ’ concept ” section explores the concept of “ GI ” , suggesting that there is already uncertainty associated with the understanding of the concept. Thirdly, section 3 , on “ Uncertainty in GI Decision-making Process: Typology and Consequences ” , investigates how uncertainty may manifest itself in the process of GI design and implementation ( section 3.1. ), and what the consequences are of uncertainty in GI decisionmaking processes ? ( section 3.2. ). Finally, the conclusion ( section 4 ) highlights that future research is needed to explore possible legal tools which may be used to respond to each type of uncertainty identified in this contribution. | - |
| dc.language.iso | en | - |
| dc.publisher | Internsentia | - |
| dc.relation.ispartofseries | European Environmental Law Forum | - |
| dc.subject.other | Environmental law | - |
| dc.subject.other | green infrastructure | - |
| dc.subject.other | types of uncertainties | - |
| dc.subject.other | legal tools to manage uncertainties | - |
| dc.subject.other | adaptive management | - |
| dc.subject.other | legal principles | - |
| dc.title | Uncertainty in Green Infrastructure Decision Making: Types, Consequences and Available Legal Tools | - |
| dc.type | Book Section | - |
| local.bibliographicCitation.authors | Ginige, Tilak | - |
| local.bibliographicCitation.authors | Green , Iain | - |
| local.bibliographicCitation.authors | Simons, Alain | - |
| local.bibliographicCitation.authors | McMullen, Joseph | - |
| dc.identifier.epage | 384 | - |
| dc.identifier.spage | 370 | - |
| local.bibliographicCitation.jcat | B2 | - |
| local.publisher.place | Cambridge-Antwerp-Chicago | - |
| dc.relation.references | References Books 28 1. Conroy M.J., Peterson J.T., Decision-Making in Natural Resource Management, A Structured Adaptive Approach, 2013, p. 193; 2. Sadeleer (De) N., Implementing the Precautionary Principle, Approaches from the Nordic Countries, EU and USA, 2007; 3. Sadeleer (De) N., Environmental Principles from Political Slogans to Legal Rules, 2002, pp. 74-75; 4. Gregory R., Failing L., et al., Structural Decision Making, A Practical Guide to Environmental Management Choices, 2012, p. 123; 5. Nagle J.C., Ruhl J.B., The Law of Biodiversity and Ecosystem Management, 2006, p. 26; 6. Niemela J., Urban Ecology, Patterns, Processes, and Applications, 2012, p. 273; 7. Ruhl J.B., et al., The Law and Policy of Ecosystem Services, 2007, p. 198; 8. Worboys L., et al. (eds), Connectivity Conservation Management, A Global Guide, 2010, p. 342; 9. John H., et al. (eds), Green Infrastructure Handbook, Conceptual and Theoretical Background, Terms and Definitions, 2019, p. 6; Journal Articles 1. Alberdi I., et al., The Conservation Status Assessment of Natura 2000 Forest Habitats in Europe: Capabilities, Potentials and Challenges of National Forest Inventories Data, Annals of Forest Science, 2019, 76, p. 34; 2. Benedict M., McMahon E. T., Green Infrastructure: Smart Conservation for the 21st Century, Renewable Resources, 2002 (20), pp. 12-17; 3. Biber E., Adaptive Management and the Future of Environmental Law, Akron Law Review, 46, 4, 2013, p. 933; 4. Bolam F.C., et al., Using the Value of Information to Improve Conservation Decision Making, Biological Reviews, 94, 2019, pp. 629-647; 5. Borgstrom S, Kistenkas F., The Compatibility of the Habitats Directive with the Novel EU Green Infrastructure Policy, European Energy and Environmental Law Review, 2014, pp. 36 – 44; 6. Borgstrom S, Simila J., Assessing Governance Structures for Green Infrastructure, Nordic Environmental Law Journal, 2014, 3, p. 9; 7. Borras L., et al, Policy Change and Europeanization: Implementing the European Union’s Habitats Directive in Germany and the United Kingdom, Environmental Politics, 24 (5), 2015, pp. 788 – 809; Eisenman Th.S., Frederick Law Olmsted, Green Infrastructure and the Evolving City, Journal of Planning History, 2013, 12 (4), p. 295; 9. Evans D., Building the European Union’s Natura 2000 Network, Nature Conservation, 2012, 1, pp. 11-26; 10. Fisher E., et al., Implementing the Precautionary Principle: Perspectives and Prospects, Review of European, Comparative and International Environmental Law (RECIEL), 16, 3, 2007, pp. 376-379; 11. Frohlich M.F., et al., The Relationship between Adaptive Management of SocialEcological Systems and Law: A Systematic Review, Ecology and Society, 23, 2, 2018; 12. Garmendia E., et al., Biodiversity and Green Infrastructure in Europe: Boundary Object or Ecological Trap?, Land Use Policy, 56, 2016, p. 315; 13. Gruber B., et al., “Mind the Gap!”, - How well does Natura 2000 cover species of European Interest?, Nature Conservation, 2012, 3, pp. 45-63; 14. Gillson L., et al., Finding Common Ground between Adaptive Management and EvidenceBased Approaches to Biodiversity Conservation, Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 34, 1, 2019, pp. 31 – 44; 15. Hanna Ch., et al., The Uncertainty Contagion: Revealing the Interrelated Cascading Uncertainties of Managed Retreat, Sustainability, 2020, 12 (2), 736. // < https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/2/736/htm#B27-sustainability-12-00736 >, last viewed 10 February 2020; 16. Jiang P., A Uniform Precautionary Principle under EU Law, Peking University Transnational Law Review, 2014, pp. 491 – 518; 17. McMahon E., Green Infrastructure, Planning Commissioners Journal, 37, 2000, p. 4; 18. Maes J., et al, An Indicator Framework for Assessing Ecosystem Services in Support of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020, Ecosystem Services, 17, 2016, p. 15; 19. Pauleit S., et al, Urban Landscapes and GI, in Oxford Research Encyclopaedia of Environmental Science, 2017.// < https://oxfordre.com/environmentalscience/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780199389414.001.00 01/acrefore-9780199389414-e-23>, last viewed 27 November, 2019; 20. Rist L., et al, Adaptive Management: Where are we now?, Environmental Conservation, 40, 1, 2012, p. 13; 21. Ruhl J.B., Adaptive Management of Ecosystem Services across Different Land Use Regimes, Journal of Environmental Management, 183, 2016, p. 418; 30 22. Ruhl J.B., General Design Principles for Resilience and Adaptive Capacity in Legal Systems – with Applications to Climate Change Adaptation, North Carolina Law Review, 89, 5, 2011, p. 1373; 23. Ruhl J.B., Fischman R.L., Adaptive Management in the Courts, Minnesota Law Review, 95, 2, 2010, p. 424; 24. Ruhl J.B., Regulation by Adaptive Management – is it Possible?, Minnesota Journal of Law, Science and Technology, 7, 1, 2005, p. 21; 25. Runge M. C., et al., Which Uncertainty? Using Expert Elicitation and Expected Value of Information to Design and Adaptive Program, Biological Conservation, 144, 2011, pp. 1214-1223; 26. Sadeleer (De) N., The Precautionary Principle in EU Law, AV&S, 2010, pp. 173-184; 27. Sadeleer (De) N., The Precautionary Principle as a Device for Greater Environmental Protection: Lessons from EC Courts, RECIEL, 18 (1), 2009, pp. 3-10; 28. Sadeleer (De) N., The Precautionary Principle in EC Health and Environmental Law, 12 (2), 2006, pp. 139-172; 29. Schoukens H., Woldendorp H.E., Site Selection and Designation under the Habitats and Birds Directives: a Sisyphean Task?, in Ch. H. Born, et al, the Habitats Directive in its EU Environmental Law Context European Nature’s Best Hope?, 2015, p. 31; 30. Stokes E.R., Liberalising the Threshold of Precaution – Cockle Fishing, the Habitats Directive, and Evidence of a New Understanding of “Scientific Uncertainty”, Environmental Law Review, Case Note, 7, 2005, p. 210; 31. Sunstein C.R., Beyond the Precautionary Principle, University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 151, 2003, pp 1003-1058; 32. Walters C. J., Holling C. S., Large-Scale Management Experiments and Learning by Doing, Ecology, 71, 6, 1990; 33. Williams B.K., Passive and Active Adaptive Management: Approaches and an Example, Journal of Environmental Management, 92, 2011; 34. Williams B.K., Adaptive Management of Natural Resources: Framework and Issues, Journal of Environmental Management, 92, 5, 2011; 35. Winter S., et al, The Impact of Natura 2000 on Forest Management: A Socio-Ecological Analysis in the Continental Region of the European Union, Biodiversity and Conservation, 23 (14), 2014, pp. 3451-3482; 36. Wintle B.A., et al., Adaptive Risk Management for Certifiably Sustainable Forestry, Forest Ecology and Management, 256, 2008, pp. 1311 – 1319. 31 Contributions to Compilations and Edited Volumes 1. Costanza R., Ecosystem Services in Theory and Practice, in M. Potschin et al., Routledge Handbook of Ecosystem Services, 2016, p. 22; 2. Kanhanga T., Scientific Uncertainties: A Nightmare for Environmental Adjudicators, in Voigt Ch., International Judicial Practice on the Environment, 2019, p. 145; 3. Mauerhofer V., Ignorance, Uncertainty and Biodiversity: Decision-Making by the Court of Justice of the European Union, in Voigt Ch., International Judicial Practice on the Environment, 2019, p. 146; 4. Potschin M., Haines-Young R., Defining and Measuring ES, in M. Potschin et al., Routledge Handbook of Ecosystem Services, 2016, p.25; 5. Sendzimir J., et al, Adaptive Management of Riverine Socio-Ecological Systems, in Schmutz S., Sendzimir J. (eds.), Riverine Ecosystem Management, 2018, p. 305; 6. Truilhe-Marengo E., How to Cope with the Unknown, A few things about Scientific Uncertainty, Precaution and Adaptive Management, in Born Ch. H., et al., (eds), The Habitats Directive in its EU Environmental Law Context, European Nature’s Best Hope?, 2015, p. 338; United Nations Documents 1. UN General Assembly (GA), Report of the UN Conference on Environment and Development, Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, A/CONF, 151/26, 192, Principle 15; 2. International Materials 1. Diaz S., et al., Report of the Plenary of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) on the Work of its Seventh Session, Summary for Policymakers of the Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, 2019, p. 3; 2. European Commission, Building a Green Infrastructure for Europe, 2013// < https://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/ecosystems/docs/green_infrastructure_broc.pdf>, last viewed 26 November 2019; 32 3. European Commission, Natura 2000 and Forests, Part I-II, 2015, p. 19.// < https://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/management/docs/Final%20Guide%2 0N2000%20%20Forests%20Part%20I-II-Annexes.pdf>, last viewed 06 December 2019; 4. European Environmental Agency (EEA), What is GI?// < https://www.eea.europa.eu/themes/sustainability-transitions/urban-environment/urbangreen-infrastructure/indicators_for_urban-green-infrastructure>, last viewed 27 November 2019; 5. European Commission, Study on the Precautionary Principle in EU Environmental Policies, Final Report, 2017; 6. Hassan R., et al. (eds), The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005; 7. Kumar P., et al. (eds), The Economics of Ecosystem and Biodiversity (TEEB): Ecological and Economic Foundations, 2010; 8. Lausche B., et al., The Legal Aspects of Connectivity Conservation, A Concept Paper, 2013, p. 17. 9. Mazza L., et al., Green Infrastructure Implementation and Efficiency, Final Report for the European Commission, 2011, p. 141; 10. Williams K.B., et al, Adaptive Management, The U.S. Department of the Interior Applications Guide, 2012; Jurisdiction, Legislation, Policy 1. Commission Staff Working Document, European Commission, Technical Information on Green Infrastructure (GI), Accompanying the Document, Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, Green Infrastructure (GI) – Enhancing Europe’s Natural Capital, COM (2013) 249 final, Brussels, 06.05. 2013, SWD (2013) 155 final, p. 12; 2. Communication, European Commission, Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, Our Life Insurance, our Natural Capital: an EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020, COM (2011)244, Final, Target 2, p. 5; 3. Communication, European Commission, Communication from the commission to the European Parliament to the European parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, SWD (2013), 155 final, COM (2013), 249 final; 33 4. Communication, European Commission, Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social committee and the Committee of the Regions, An EU Strategy on Adaptation to Climate Change, COM (2012) 673, final, p. 5, p. 13; 5. Communication, European Commission, Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, Roadmap to a Resource Efficient Europe, COM (2013) 216, Final, p. 6, pp. 8-9; 6. Communication, European Commission, Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the regions, A Blueprint to Safeguard Europe’s Water, COM (2011) 571 final, p. 12; 7. Communication, European Commission, The CAP towards 2020, Meeting the Food, Natural Resources and Territorial Challenges of the Future, COM (2010) 672, 18.11.2010, p. 11; 8. Communication, European Commission, A New EU Forest Strategy: for Forests and the Forest-based Sector, COM (2013), 659 Final, 20.09.2013, p. 9; 9. Directive, Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council 2009/147/EC On the Conservation of Wild Birds, OJ 2010, L 20/7; 10. Directive, Directive 2007/60/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 23 October 2007 on the Assessment and Management of Flood Risks, OJ, L 288/27, art. 7; 11. Directive, Council Directive 92/43/EEC On the Conservation of Natural Habitats and of Wild Fauna and Flora, OJ 1992, L 206/7, art. 3; 12. ECJ Judgement, Case C – 301/12, Cascina Tre Pinin Ss versus Ministero dell’Ambiente e della tutela del Territorio e del Mare and Others, ECLI:EU:C:2014:214, para. 28; 13. ECJ Judgement, Case C – 3/96, Commission of the European Communities v. the Kingdom of the Netherlands, ECLI:EU:C:1998:238, para. 68; 14. ECJ Judgement, Case C-334/04, Commission of the European Communities v. Hellenic Republic, ECLI:EU:C:2007:268, para. 59; 15. ECJ Judgement, Case C-240/00, Commission of the European Communities v. Finland, ECLI:EU:C:2003:126; 16. ECJ Judgement, C-378/01, Commission of the European Communities v. Italy, ECLI:EU:C:2003:176; 17. ECJ, Case C-157/96, National Farmers’ Union, ECR I – 2211, para 63 34 18. ECJ Judgement, C-235/04, Commission of the European Communities v. Kingdom of Spain, ECLI:EU:C:2007:386; 19. ECJ Judgement, C-340/10, European Commission v. Cyprus, ECLI:EU:C: 2012 :143; 20. EU Treaty, The Treaty of the Functioning of the EU, OJ 2012 C 326/49, art. 191 (2); 21. Report, European Commission, Report from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, Review of Progress on Implementation of the EU GI Strategy, Brussels, 24 May 2019, COM (2019), 236 final, p. 10. 22. White Paper, Adapting to Climate Change: Towards a European Framework for Action, COM (2009), 147 final, p.5 | - |
| local.type.refereed | Refereed | - |
| local.type.specified | Book Section | - |
| local.relation.ispartofseriesnr | 8 | - |
| dc.identifier.url | https://www.larcier-intersentia.com/en/social-scientific-uncertainties-environmental-law-9781839704031.html#product.info.tab.authors | - |
| local.bibliographicCitation.btitle | Social and scientific uncretianties in environmental law | - |
| local.uhasselt.international | no | - |
| item.fulltext | No Fulltext | - |
| item.accessRights | Closed Access | - |
| item.fullcitation | GORDEEVA, Yelena (2024) Uncertainty in Green Infrastructure Decision Making: Types, Consequences and Available Legal Tools. In: Ginige, Tilak; Green , Iain; Simons, Alain; McMullen, Joseph (Ed.). Social and scientific uncretianties in environmental law, Internsentia, p. 370 -384. | - |
| item.contributor | GORDEEVA, Yelena | - |
| item.contributor | Ginige, Tilak | - |
| Appears in Collections: | Research publications | |
Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.