Suchergebnisse

ABSTRACTManagers of invasive species seek to prevent and mitigate their impact, which vary in the time horizon over which they are realized. Likewise, stakeholders vary in the time horizons they consider relevant. Agricultural impacts might reasonably be considered over two or three decades, although ecologists typically consider environmental impacts over much longer time frames. Although time preference plays a critical role in decision making, it has largely been ignored in multicriteria analyses. In this study, we examine how time has been treated in previous decision analyses of invasive species management, focusing on the differences between multicriteria and economic cost–benefit analyses. We then outline a method for incorporating time preference information into multicriteria decision analyses to ensure that criteria weights remain a faithful representation of the decision maker's preferences. To illustrate how time preference can be elicited for invasive species problems involving both monetary and nonmonetary consequences, we describe a small empirical study we conducted with a small group of experts and managers. By outlining a way to consider time preference information in multicriteria analyses of invasive species management, we hope to facilitate better decision making that is reflective of the decision maker's true preferences. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.