The purpose of this article is to help environmental practitioners deal with uncertainty. A simple model is presented that distinguishes between uncertainties about fact—past, present, and future—and indecision about what to do. To help environmental practitioners deal with these two problems, four tools or conceptual aides are presented. First presented is the “source of uncertainty” analysis method, which can help environmental practitioners understand the sources of uncertainty about facts. Second, a conceptual discussion of imprecise probability is presented to provide environmental practitioners with a method for understanding how to represent uncertainty quantitatively. The third tool presented is known as comprehensive life cycle analysis, which is a methodology to help environmental practitioners assess the full impacts of potential environmental decisions over multiple criteria and time. Fourth, a decision process framework is presented to help environmental practitioners understand when and how uncertainty and indecision can be attacked. The paper includes a discussion about how these four tools can be used by environmental practitioners to overcome seven common everyday problems they may face when confronted with the need to make environmental decisions under uncertainty. The paper also applies the four tools and relates the seven problems to the example of tropospheric ozone.

The article examines the environmental, public health, and management problems associated with developing countries' use of hazardous pesticides. Results from an in-depth case study of Zambia, Africa, provide insights from rural farmers and government officials, and reveal the economic, political, and social factors entangled with the environmental and human health risks of pesticides. The study suggests that problems will intensify unless the incentives, practices, and regulations concerning hazardous pesticides are reformed. Recommended reforms include stronger international and national regulatory systems that emphasize improved risk communication, and culturally sensitive training programs that emphasize alternatives to pesticides and in-country research.

In 1993, in an attempt to avoid the traditional lengthy, costly, and often controversial process of relicensing hydropower projects, Avista Corporation initiated a novel collaborative approach that brought together a number of disparate actors to craft a consensus relicensing application. The company's interest in a cooperative settlement was driven by continuing changes in the economic, political, and regulatory environment of relicensing. Over the last three decades various regulatory actors have placed a greater emphasis on environmental protection, increased competition in the electricity industry, and opened the relicensing process to new participants. There were three primary issues in the settlement discussions: the level of funding Avista would commit to environmental mitigation, species protection and habitat restoration, and the future operation of hydropower projects. The negotiated settlement provides the company with a degree of cost and regulatory certainty, while environmental organizations and government wildlife agencies gain an accelerated time-frame for mitigation and protection activities and a secure funding commitment. The Clark Fork settlement is evidence that negotiated compromises to relicensing applications may in certain circumstances become an effective means to balance economic and environmental values.

Chemicals have become an integral part of human life today and contribute to many basic needs. In recent years there has been an increase in the number, variety, and complexity of chemicals being used in industry and in our daily lives. Many of these chemicals are toxic, explosive, and/or reactive, thus posing a potential hazard to humans, other life forms, and the environment. Extensive use of such chemicals, while essential for a better quality of life, can result in certain adverse effects that may be immediate or may be visible over a period of time. The problem needs to be addressed with a view to providing a better environment for future generations. We need to adopt a preventive approach— “prevention is better than cure”—especially in the management of hazardous and toxic chemicals.