ABSTRACT
Many studies presented here have implications for decision-making and management processes that (implicitly or explicitly) involve the precautionary principle. Emerton et al propose that precautionary measures are more likely to be accepted when the process of identifying, evaluating and responding to uncertain conservation threats is a sound one – informed by various stakeholder perspectives, taking available information into account, and being explicit about uncertainties, assumptions, trade-offs and how these have been resolved. Low’s examination of WRA in Australia, and the support it has won even from those restricted by it, suggests that precautionary restrictions are more likely to be accepted when they are supported by a clear, transparent, science-based process. Tucker and Treweek conclude that applying the precautionary principle requires clear communication and development of a shared understanding of the basis for decisions.
