Reconciling Anthropocentrism and Biocentrism Through Adaptive Management: The Case of the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant and Public Risk Perception

• Author: Alex W. Thrower,J. Michael Martinez
• Published date: 01 March 2000
• Date: 01 March 2000
• DOI: 10.1177/107049650000900104
• Subject Matter: Articles

JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENT & DEVELOPMENTThrower, Martinez / ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT Reconciling Anthropocentrism and Biocentrism

Through Adaptive Management: The Case

of the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant

and Public Risk Perception

ALEX W. THROWER

J. MICHAEL MARTINEZ

Environmental policy issues often cannot be resolved owing to differences

betweenanthropocentristswhoadheretoneoclassicaleconomicprinciplesand

biocentrists who argue in favor of a broad conception of sustainable develop-

ment. This article examines the two perspectives in the context of radioactive

wastemanagementby presenting a case study involving publicriskperception

of the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP). WIPP is a mining program under-

taken by the U.S. Department of Energy’s Office of Environmental Manage-

menttodemonstratethesafetransportation and disposal of transuranic waste, a

by-product of nuclear weapons production. The authors conclude that U.S.

waste management programs such as WIPP can garner support only if a

means for genuine, meaningful public participation is provided through adap-

tive management principles that “bridge the gap,” to the extent possible,

between anthropocentric and biocentric perspectives.

Many commentators have argued in recent years that contentious

issues of environmental public policy can be resolved by providing “a

powerful center around which environmental and human advocates

can unite” (Peterson, 1997, p. 3). This optimistic assessment suggests

that middle ground can be carved out to reconcile two competing

schools of thought locked in a debate over the appropriate course of

actionfor directing continued economicdevelopment while also pursu-

ing effective environmental resource management. Often, this effort

travelsunder the name of “sustainable development,” a trendy and fre-

quentlymisunderstoodconceptofintergenerationalequity. Sustainable

developmentisan idea that seeks toprotect the natural environment for

futuregenerations while fostering economic growth in the present. One

ofthe most famousdefinitions of sustainable development came from a

1987reportoftheWorldCommissionontheEnvironmentand Develop-

ment, the “Brundtland Report,” named for the chairperson, the prime

minister of Norway. According to the Brundtland Report, sustainable

development is defined as development that “meets the needs of the

present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet

their own needs” (From One Earth to One World, 1997, p. 8). Similarly, in

68

Journal of Environment & Development, Vol. 9, No. 1, March 2000 68-97

© 2000 Sage Publications, Inc.

at SAGE Publications on December 7, 2012jed.sagepub.comDownloaded from

“Agenda 21,” a major document adopted by almost all countries of the

world at the famous 1992 United Nations Conference on the Environ-

mentandDevelopment(UNCED) held in Rio de Janeiro,Brazil,thegoal

of sustainability is “to ensure socially responsible economic develop-

mentwhileprotectingtheresourcesbaseandtheenvironmentforfuture

generations”(Beckerman, 1998, p. 463).On its face, the conceptpresents

alogicallycompellingpleaforcommonsenseinenvironmental decision

making.

Theproblemisthatproponentsofcontinuedindustrialdevelopment,

onone hand, and members of the publicwho consider themselvesenvi-

ronmentalists, on the other hand, approach sustainability from diamet-

ricallyopposedperspectives. Members of theformergroup subscribe to

anotionofrightsandobligationsthatstressesanthropocentricindividu-

ality and favors utility calculations based on assumptions propagated

byneoclassical economists. Neoclassical economists contend that virtu-

ally all individual and social choices can be quantified and translated

into comparative units of measurement that are easily understood, val-

ued, and traded according to relatively fixed economic principles. The

task for neoclassical economists, therefore, is to identify relevant choices,

quantify and translate them into appropriate units of measurement,

account for periodic fluctuations in market forces, and evaluate the out-

comes. Even market failures that result in unintended consequences, such

asfreeridersand negative externalities, can be predicted,tosomeextent

(Buchanan,1991; Costanza, Cumberland, Daly, Goodland,& Norgaard,

1997, p. 39; Ferguson, 1969; Henry, 1990; Marshall, 1890; Pigou, 1952).

Environmentalists are troubled by neoclassical economists’ pre-

sumption of relative certainty in evaluating individual and social

choices. Instead, members of the environmental community argue in

favorof what might best becalled “ecological economics.” This position

suggeststhatenvironmentalquestionsarenotalwaysamenabletotradi-

tional methods of neoclassical economic analysis requiring market

valuation techniques and substitutions because some resources, once

they have been diminished, are irreplaceable by virtue of their rare or

unique features. Instead, ecological economists champion community-

based values, examining questions involving the natural environment

from a biocentric (or ecocentric) perspective that sometimes strikes pol-

icy makers, who often adhere to neoclassical economic principles, as

impossibly naive, vague, and quixotic. (Although not every ecological

economistisnecessarilyabiocentrist,the ecological economic position is

closer to biocentrism than the position advocated by mainstream, neo-

classical economists.)

The central question in this debate on environmental values is

whether the perspectives of these two groups can be reconciled in an

effortto develop consistent,coherent, effective publicpolicy to regulate

uses and protection of the natural environment. In short, can the

Thrower, Martinez / ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT 69

at SAGE Publications on December 7, 2012jed.sagepub.comDownloaded from