The purpose of this study was to make a contribution towards decision–making in complex
environmental problems, especially where data is limited and associated with a high degree of
uncertainty. As a young scientist, I understood the value of science as a measuring and
quantification tool and used to intuitively believe that science was exact and could provide
undisputable answers.
It was in 1997, during the Safety Assessments done at the Vaalputs National Radioactive
Waste Repository that my belief system was challenged. This occurred after there were
numerous scientific studies done on the site that was started since the early 1980’s, yet with
no conclusion as to how safe the site is in terms of radioactive waste disposal. The Safety
Assessment process was developed by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to
transform the scientific investigations and data into decision–making information for the
purposes of radioactive waste management.
It was also during the Vaalputs investigations when I learned the value of lateral thinking.
There were numerous scientists with doctorate and master’s degrees that worked on the site of
which I was one. One of the important requirements was to measure evaporation at the local
weather station close to the repository. It was specifically important to measure evaporation as
a controlling parameter in the unsaturated zone models. Evaporation was measured with an Apan
that is filled with water so that the losses can be measured. Vaalputs is a very dry place
and water is scarce. The local weather station site was fenced off, but there was a problem in
that the aardvark dug below the fence and drank the water in the A–pan, so that no
measurements were possible. The solution from the scientists was to put the fence deeper into
the ground. The aardvark did not find it hard to dig even deeper. The next solution was to put
a second fence around the weather station and again the aardvark dug below it to drink the
water. It was then that Mr Robbie Schoeman, a technician became aware of the problem and
put a drinking water container outside the weather station fence for the aardvark and – the
problem was solved at a fraction of the cost of the previous complex solutions.
I get in contact with the same thinking patterns that intuitively expect that the act of scientific
investigations will provide decision–making information or even solve the problem. If the
investigation provides more questions than answers, the quest is for more and more data on
more detailed scales. There is a difference between problem characterization and solution viidentification.
Problem characterization requires scientific and critical thinking, which is an
important component but that has to be incorporated with the solution identification process
of creative thinking towards decision–making.
I am a scientist by heart, but it was necessary to realise that apart from research, practical
science must feed into a higher process, such as decision–making to be able to make a
practical difference.
The process of compilation of this thesis meant a lot to me as I initially thought of doing a
PhD and then it changed me, especially in the way I think. This was a life changing process,
which is good. As Jesus said in Mathew 3:2 And saying, Repent (think differently; change
your mind, regretting your sins and changing your conduct), for the kingdom of heaven is at
hand. / Thesis (Ph.D. (Geography and Environmental Studies))--North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2011.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:NWUBOLOKA1/oai:dspace.nwu.ac.za:10394/7628 |
| Date | January 2011 |
| Creators | Vivier, Jacobus Johannes Petrus |
| Publisher | North-West University |
| Source Sets | North-West University |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | Thesis |
Page generated in 0.0016 seconds