Search

Infrastructure is crucial to the functioning of society and the economy. Yet, to avoid precipitating environmental breakdown, it must undergo transformation. We argue that citizens who rely on infrastructure's services should have a say in how transformation is managed. However, the complex nature of infrastructure means that public dialogue is difficult and rarely done well. Infrastructure has several characteristics, which make elicitation of perceptions challenging: it is connective, relational, obdurate, collective and subject to fragmented governance. We held a series of deliberative workshops in a city in the UK, to examine how public perceptions of infrastructure are shaped by these characteristics. We found that using infrastructure's characteristics as a framework for deliberation built participants' capabilities to articulate perceptions of infrastructure. We argue that using these characteristics also placed more emphasis on the socio-materiality of infrastructure and can address the disconnect between scales of participation and scales of decision making. This offers an alternative way to debate the desirable attributes of infrastructure, which we argue is more productive and inclusive. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Climate change mitigation has two main characteristics that interact to make it an extremely demanding challenge of governance: the complexity of the socio-technical systems that must be transformed to avoid climate change and the presence of profound uncertainties. A number of tools and approaches exist, which aim to help manage these challenges and support long-term decision making. However, most tools and approaches assume that there is one decision maker with clearly defined objectives. The interaction between decision makers with differing perspectives and agency is an additional uncertainty that is rarely addressed, despite the wide recognition that action is required at multiple scales and by multiple actors. This article draws inspiration from dynamic adaptive policy pathways to build on current decision support methods, extending analysis to include the perspectives and agency of multiple actors through a case study of the UK construction sector. The findings demonstrate the importance of considering alignment between perspectives, agency and potential actions when developing plans; the need for mobilizing and advocacy actions to build momentum for radical change; and the crucial influence of interaction between actors. The decision support approach presented could improve decision making by reflecting the diversity and interaction of actors; identifying short-term actions that connect to long-term goals and keeping future options open. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• "Predict and act" decision making is ineffective in the face of deep uncertainty. • Decision making under deep uncertainty (DMDU) methods support robust and adaptable decisions. • However, DMDU methods do not fully reflect the context in which decisions are made. • This influences the availability of feasible options and limits capacity for change. • Decision contexts signpost the selection of full or "hybrid" DMDU approaches. Deep uncertainties like environmental and socio-economic changes create challenges to decision making. Decision Making under Deep Uncertainty (DMDU) methods are recognised approaches to navigate deep uncertainties and support robust and adaptable decisions. However, their ability to fully reflect the context in which these decisions are made has been criticised. This paper presents a synthesis across cases and methods to provide a holistic understanding of the application of DMDU methods to support long-term decision making. We carried out a structured literature review and analysed 37 infrastructure DMDU case studies. The analysis shows that DMDU methods are effective at developing plans to address a range of deep uncertainties and in some cases, reflecting the institutional context of the decision. However, they largely overlook the organisational and individual contexts in which decision making happens. We argue that the use of existing DMDU methods in practice should start with a better understanding of the institutional, organisational and individual contexts. We then suggest modifications to the applications of DMDU methods, i.e. internalising the context at different stages of the decision-making process and developing a decision typology to signpost decision makers to the best approach for a specific context. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]