IntroductionNatural resource management uses expert judgement to estimate facts that inform important decisions. Unfortunately, expert judgement is often derived by informal and largely untested protocols, despite evidence that the quality of judgements can be improved with structured approaches. We attribute the lack of uptake of structured protocols to the dearth of illustrative examples that demonstrate how they can be applied within pressing time and resource constraints, while also improving judgements.Aims and methodsIn this paper, we demonstrate how the IDEA protocol for structured expert elicitation may be deployed to overcome operational challenges while improving the quality of judgements. The protocol was applied to the estimation of 14 future abiotic and biotic events on the Great Barrier Reef, Australia. Seventy-six participants with varying levels of expertise related to the Great Barrier Reef were recruited and allocated randomly to eight groups. Each participant provided their judgements using the four-step question format of the IDEA protocol (‘Investigate’, ‘Discuss’, ‘Estimate’, ‘Aggregate’) through remote elicitation. When the events were realised, the participant judgements were scored in terms of accuracy, calibration and informativeness.Results and conclusionsThe results demonstrate that the IDEA protocol provides a practical, cost-effective, and repeatable approach to the elicitation of quantitative estimates and uncertainty via remote elicitation. We emphasise that i) the aggregation of diverse individual judgements into pooled group judgments almost always outperformed individuals, and ii) use of a modified Delphi approach helped to remove linguistic ambiguity, and further improved individual and group judgements. Importantly, the protocol encourages review, critical appraisal and replication, each of which is required if judgements are to be used in place of data in a scientific context. The results add to the growing body of literature that demonstrates the merit of using structured elicitation protocols. We urge decision-makers and analysts to use insights and examples to improve the evidence base of expert judgement in natural resource management.
Aim Conservation practitioners use biological surveys to ascertain whether or not a site is occupied by a particular species. Widely used statistical methods estimate the probability that a species will be detected in a survey of an occupied site. However, these estimates of detection probability are alone not sufficient to calculate the probability that a species is present given that it was not detected. The aim of this paper is to demonstrate methods for correctly calculating (1) the probability a species occupies a site given one or more non-detections, and (2) the number of sequential non-detections necessary to assert, with a pre-specified confidence, that a species is absent from a site.Location Occupancy data for a tree frog in eastern Australia serve to illustrate methods that may be applied anywhere species' occupancy data are used and detection probabilities are < 1.Methods Building on Bayesian expressions for the probability that a site is occupied by a species when it is not detected, and the number of non-detections necessary to assert absence with a pre-specified confidence, we estimate occupancy probabilities across tree frog survey locations, drawing on information about where and when the species was detected during surveys. Results We show that the number of sequential non-detections necessary to assert that a species is absent increases nonlinearly with the prior probability of occupancy, the probability of detection if present, and the desired level of confidence about absence.Main conclusions If used more widely, the Bayesian analytical approaches illustrated here would improve collection and interpretation of biological survey data, providing a coherent way to incorporate detection probability estimates in the design of minimum survey requirements for monitoring, impact assessment and distribution modelling.
Biodiversity conservation decisions are difficult, especially when they involve differing values, complex multidimensional objectives, scarce resources, urgency, and considerable uncertainty. Decision science embodies a theory about how to make difficult decisions and an extensive array of frameworks and tools that make that theory practical. We sought to improve conceptual clarity and practical application of decision science to help decision makers apply decision science to conservation problems. We addressed barriers to the uptake of decision science, including a lack of training and awareness of decision science; confusion over common terminology and which tools and frameworks to apply; and the mistaken impression that applying decision science must be time consuming, expensive, and complex. To aid in navigating the extensive and disparate decision science literature, we clarify meaning of common terms: decision science, decision theory, decision analysis, structured decision-making, and decision-support tools. Applying decision science does not have to be complex or time consuming; rather, it begins with knowing how to think through the components of a decision utilizing decision analysis (i.e., define the problem, elicit objectives, develop alternatives, estimate consequences, and perform trade-offs). This is best achieved by applying a rapid-prototyping approach. At each step, decision-support tools can provide additional insight and clarity, whereas decision-support frameworks (e.g., priority threat management and systematic conservation planning) can aid navigation of multiple steps of a decision analysis for particular contexts. We summarize key decision-support frameworks and tools and describe to which step of a decision analysis, and to which contexts, each is most useful to apply. Our introduction to decision science will aid in contextualizing current approaches and new developments, and help decision makers begin to apply decision science to conservation problems.
Frameworks for analyzing the risks of emerging diseases and invasive species often have relied on unstructured estimates of likelihoods and consequences. We suggest a flexible alternative that offers more transparent analysis without need for additional data. Its strength lies in explicit and complementary treatment of technical and social judgments. We describe a system in which cognitive maps, Bayes nets, and multicriteria analysis can be used in tandem to structure a problem, identify exposure pathways, combine data and expert judgement to estimate the likelihoods, and assess consequences of alternative decisions. These tools may be employed in participatory settings or as part of standard regulatory practice. We illustrate this approach with an assessment of the management of an emerging disease that poses a hazard to Australia.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.