Suchergebnisse

"Policy- and decision-makers in government and industry constantly face important decisions without full knowledge of all the facts. They rely routinely on expert advice to fill critical scientific knowledge gaps. There are unprecedented opportunities for experts to influence decisions. Yet even the most experienced can be over-confident and error-prone, and the hidden risk is that scientists and other experts can over-reach, often with good intentions, placing more weight on the evidence they provide than is warranted. This book describes how to identify potentially risky advice, explains why group judgements outperform individual estimates, and provides an accessible and up-to-date guide to the science of expert judgement. Finally, and importantly, it outlines a simple, practical framework that will help policy- and decision-makers to ensure that the advice that they receive is relatively reliable and accurate, thus substantially improving the quality of information on which critical decisions are made"--

AbstractWeighted aggregation of expert judgments based on their performance on calibration questions may improve mathematically aggregated judgments relative to equal weights. However, obtaining validated, relevant calibration questions can be difficult. If so, should analysts settle for equal weights? Or should they use calibration questions that are easier to obtain but less relevant? In this article, we examine what happens to the out‐of‐sample performance of weighted aggregations of the classical model (CM) compared to equal weighted aggregations when the set of calibration questions includes many so‐called "irrelevant" questions, those that might ordinarily be considered to be outside the domain of the questions of interest. We find that performance weighted aggregations outperform equal weights on the combined CM score, but not on statistical accuracy (i.e., calibration). Importantly, there was no appreciable difference in performance when weights were developed on relevant versus irrelevant questions. Experts were unable to adapt their knowledge across vastly different domains, and in‐sample validation did not accurately predict out‐of‐sample performance on irrelevant questions. We suggest that if relevant calibration questions cannot be found, then analysts should use equal weights, and draw on alternative techniques to improve judgments. Our study also indicates limits to the predictive accuracy of performance weighted aggregation, and the degree to which expertise can be adapted across domains. We note limitations in our study and urge further research into the effect of question type on the reliability of performance weighted aggregations.

Australian state and federal agencies use a broad range of methods for setting conservation priorities for species at risk. Some of these are based on rule sets developed by the International Union for the Conservation ofNature, while others use point scoring protocols to assess threat. All of them ignore uncertainty in the data. In this study, we assessed the conservation status of 29 threatened vascular plants from Tasmania and New South Wales using a variety of methods including point scoring and rule‐based approaches. In addition, several methods for dealing with uncertainty in the data were applied to each of the prioritysetting schemes. The results indicatethat the choice of a protocol for setting priorities and the choice of the way in which uncertainty is treated may make important differences to the resulting assessments of risk. The choice among methods needs to be rationalized within the management context in which it is to be applied. These methods are not a substitute for more formal risk assessment.

With climate change and increasing globalisation of trade and travel, the risks presented by invasive pests and pathogens to natural environments, agriculture and economies have never been greater, and are only increasing with time. Governments world-wide are responding to these increased threats by strengthening quarantine and biosecurity. This book presents a comprehensive review of risk-based techniques that help policy makers and regulators protect national interests from invasive pests and pathogens before, at, and inside national borders. Selected from the research corpus of the Centre of Excellence for Biosecurity Risk Analysis at the University of Melbourne, this book provides solutions that reflect scientific rigour coupled with practical, hands-on applications. Focusing on surveillance, stochastic modelling, intelligence gathering, decision making and risk communication, the contents combine the strengths of risk analysts, mathematicians, economists, biologists and statisticians. The book presents tested scientific solutions to the greatest challenges faced by quarantine and biosecurity policy makers and regulators today

In pursuit of socioeconomic development, many countries are expanding oil and mineral extraction into tropical forests. These activities seed access to remote, biologically rich areas, thereby endangering global biodiversity. We examined how protection of biodiversity and economic revenues can be balanced in biologically valuable regions. Using spatial data on oil profits and predicted species and ecosystem extents, we optimized the protection of 741 terrestrial species and 20 ecosystems of the Ecuadorian Amazon across a range of opportunity costs (i.e., sacrifices of extractive profit). We also applied spatial statistics to remotely sensed, historic deforestation data to focus the optimization on areas most threatened by imminent forest loss. Giving up 5% of a year's oil profits (US$221 million) allowed for a protected area network that retained an average of 65% of the extent of each species and ecosystem. This performance far exceeded that of the network produced by simple optimization for land area (which required a sacrifice of approximately 40% of annual oil profits [US$1.7 billion]) and used only marginally less land to achieve equivalent levels of ecological protection. We identified what we call emergency conservation targets: regions that are essential components of a cost-effective conservation reserve network but at imminent risk of destruction, thus requiring urgent and effective protection. Governments can use our methods when evaluating extractive-led development options to responsibly manage the associated ecological and economic trade-offs and protect natural capital. ; Cuando se busca el desarrollo socioeconómico, muchos países expanden la extracción de petróleo y de minerales dentro de los bosques tropicales. Estas actividades proporcionan el acceso a áreas remotas con riqueza biológica y por lo tanto ponen en peligro a la biodiversidad mundial. Examinamos cómo la protección de la biodiversidad y las ganancias económicas pueden estar balanceadas en regiones con valor biológico. Usamos datos espaciales sobre las ganancias del petróleo y sobre los pronósticos de la extensión de los ecosistemas y la distribución de las especies para optimizar la protección de 741 especies terrestres y 20 ecosistemas de la Amazonía ecuatoriana a lo largo de una gama de costos de oportunidad (es decir, los sacrificios de las ganancias de las industrias extractivas). También aplicamos estadística espacial a los datos de deforestación histórica detectados con telemetría para enfocar a la optimización en las áreas más amenazadas por la inminente pérdida del bosque. El sacrificio del 5% de las ganancias anuales provenientes del petróleo (US$221 millones) permitió la existencia de una red de áreas protegidas que retuvo un promedio de 65% de la extensión de cada ecosistema y de la distribución de cada especie. Este desempeño excedió por mucho aquél de la red de áreas protegidas producido de las ganancias anuales del petróleo [US$1.7 mil millones]); además de que utilizó ligeramente menos suelo para alcanzar los niveles equivalentes de protección ecológica. Identificamos algo que llamamos objetivos de conservación de emergencia: regiones que son componentes esenciales de una red de reservas de conservación rentable, pero a la vez un riesgo inminente de destrucción, por lo que requieren protección urgente y efectiva. Los gobiernos pueden usar nuestros métodos cuando evalúen sus opciones de desarrollo llevado por la extracción para manejar responsablemente las compensaciones ecológicas y económicas asociadas y así proteger al capital natural. ; Programa Capital Humano Avanzado from CONICYT 21150159

Management responsibilities for the system of marine national parks and sanctuaries declared in Victoria, Australia in 2002 have created imperatives for robust, scientifically defendable approaches to identifying threats to valued ecological attributes of the parks, setting management priorities, and developing monitoring systems. We are developing a protocol for ecological risk assessment in the parks that has due regard for the perception of risks by individuals, and ensures that stakeholder values are an intrinsic part of decision making. The inclusive and transparent protocol provides an opportunity for stakeholder involvement in the identification of valued attributes, as well as in the assessment of associated risks. Our approach brings together ideas about how science enters the community engagement domain in ways that promote collaboration and transparency in decision making. A series of stakeholder workshops across the state drew on the expertise of agency staff, community groups, fishers, industry representatives, academics, and knowledgeable park neighbors to identify hazards of major concern in the parks. Many hazards involved predictable, tangible threats like pollution and exotic species, but the approach also identified a number of less obvious threats related to governance issues and the knowledge‐base for the parks. Importantly, the workshops with their broad range of stakeholders identified threats not previously considered by the management agency in its internal assessments, and several of these "new" threats are already the subject of action by the agency. The deliberate incorporation of local knowledge and local networks in the risk assessment process also provided opportunities for greater engagement of stakeholders with the management agency.

Voting systems aggregate preferences efficiently and are often used for deciding conservation priorities. Desirable characteristics of voting systems include transitivity, completeness, and Pareto optimality, among others. Voting systems that are common and potentially useful for environmental decision making include simple majority, approval, and preferential voting. Unfortunately, no voting system can guarantee an outcome, while also satisfying a range of very reasonable performance criteria. Furthermore, voting methods may be manipulated by decision makers and strategic voters if they have knowledge of the voting patterns and alliances of others in the voting populations. The difficult properties of voting systems arise in routine decision making when there are multiple criteria and management alternatives. Because each method has flaws, we do not endorse one method. Instead, we urge organizers to be transparent about the properties of proposed voting systems and to offer participants the opportunity to approve the voting system as part of the ground rules for operation of a group.

Voting systems aggregate preferences efficiently and are often used for deciding conservation priorities. Desirable characteristics of voting systems include transitivity, completeness, and Pareto optimality, among others. Voting systems that are common and potentially useful for environmental decision making include simple majority, approval, and preferential voting. Unfortunately, no voting system can guarantee an outcome, while also satisfying a range of very reasonable performance criteria. Furthermore, voting methods may be manipulated by decision makers and strategic voters if they have knowledge of the voting patterns and alliances of others in the voting populations. The difficult properties of voting systems arise in routine decision making when there are multiple criteria and management alternatives. Because each method has flaws, we do not endorse one method. Instead, we urge organizers to be transparent about the properties of proposed voting systems and to offer participants the opportunity to approve the voting system as part of the ground rules for operation of a group.