首页> 外文期刊>Environment and planning >Answers to questions on uncertainty in geography: Old lessons and new scenario tools
【24h】

Answers to questions on uncertainty in geography: Old lessons and new scenario tools

机译:回答有关地理不确定性的问题:旧课程和新方案工具

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

In many domains, including geography, there can be the implicit assumption that improved data analysis and statistical modelling must lead to improved policymaking, and its perceived failure to do so can be disconcerting. Yet, this assumption overlooks the fundamental distinction between epistemological and ontological uncertainty, as discussed herein. Epistemological uncertainty describes the known and bounded inaccuracy of our knowledge about the world as now. Whereas ontological uncertainty describes the rendering completely obsolete of this present knowledge by surprises in the form of currently unknown future events, and by cascading changes to beliefs, attitudes and behaviours made by diverse actors in response to - and in anticipation of others' responses to - new developments. This paper does the following: (a) shows that because of ontological uncertainty, improved data analysis and statistical modelling can never lead straightforwardly to improved policymaking, no matter how well implemented; (b) outlines how probability-based tools offer little assistance with ontological uncertainty because they are based on present perceptions of future possibilities; (c) urges geographers to reconcile with ontological uncertainty as a source of potentially transformational change, rather than viewing it as a problem to be overcome or something to be defended against; and (d) reviews a range of new, non-probabilistic scenario tools that, when used in combination, can assist in harnessing ontological uncertainty for transformational purposes by surfacing what is to be gained and by whom from enabling, blocking or altering intended policy outcomes, and by searching for future possibilities unconstrained by the present.
机译:在包括地理在内的许多领域中,可能存在一个隐含的假设,即改进的数据分析和统计建模必须导致改进的决策制定,并且其这样做的失败感可能令人不安。然而,如本文所讨论的,该假设忽略了认识论和本体论不确定性之间的根本区别。认识论上的不确定性描述了我们对世界知识的已知和有限的不准确性。鉴于本体论的不确定性描述了当前未知的未来事件形式的惊奇,以及通过级联改变不同行为者对-以及预期他人对-的预期而做出的信念,态度和行为的改变,从而使本知识完全过时了。新发展。本文做了以下工作:(a)表明,由于存在本体论上的不确定性,无论实施得如何好,改进的数据分析和统计建模永远无法直接导致改进的政策制定; (b)概述了基于概率的工具如何基于本体对未来可能性的当前看法而几乎无法为本体论不确定性提供帮助; (c)敦促地理学家将本体论的不确定性作为潜在的变革性变化的来源加以调和,而不是将其视为需要克服的问题或需要防御的事物; (d)审查一系列新的,非概率的情景工具,这些工具在组合使用时,可以通过揭示要获得的收益以及由谁来启用,阻止或更改预期的政策结果,来帮助利用本体论不确定性进行转型,并寻找不受当前限制的未来可能性。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号