A Framework for Assessing and Managing Risks Posed by Emerging Diseases

Walshe, Terry; Burgman, Mark A.

doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.2009.01305.x

Cited by 44 publications

(43 citation statements)

References 61 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…2013). Weighting values, consequences, and objectives helps assess trade‐offs in multi‐action decision making (eg Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis; WebTable 2; Walshe and Burgman 2010), and ensures that societal preferences or constraints are accommodated.…”

Section: Integrating Threat Management Into An Sdm Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

Why do we map threats? Linking threat mapping with actions to make better conservation decisions

Tulloch

Visconti

et al. 2015

Frontiers in Ecol & Environ

215

190

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Spatial representations of threatening processes – “threat maps” – can identify where biodiversity is at risk, and are often used to identify priority locations for conservation. In doing so, decision makers are prone to making errors, either by assuming that the level of threat dictates spatial priorities for action or by relying primarily on the location of mapped threats to choose possible actions. We show that threat mapping can be a useful tool when incorporated within a transparent and repeatable structured decision‐making (SDM) process. SDM ensures transparent and defendable conservation decisions by linking objectives to biodiversity outcomes, and by considering constraints, consequences of actions, and uncertainty. If used to make conservation decisions, threat maps are best developed with an understanding of how species respond to actions that mitigate threats. This approach will ensure that conservation actions are prioritized where they are most cost‐effective or have the greatest impact, rather than where threat levels are highest.

show abstract

Section: Integrating Threat Management Into An Sdm Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

Why do we map threats? Linking threat mapping with actions to make better conservation decisions

Tulloch

Visconti

et al. 2015

Frontiers in Ecol & Environ

215

190

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…To this end, Bayes nets provide a framework for the quantification of uncertainty (Walshe and Burgman, 2010) although data and resource requirements appear quite considerable and may not be sustainable in the long term. Other extensions such as the adaptation to a scenario of multiple threats of Cooke´s methodology (Cooke 1991), which allows a weighted pooled estimate of evidence from a heterogeneous group of calibrated experts, may merit study.…”

Section: Data Issuesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Earlier works include the application of MCDA to the evaluation of health interventions and their rank ordering in multiple settings (e.g Baltussen and Niessen 2006, Felli et al 2009, Mourits et al 2010, Walshe and Burgman 2010. Hongoh et al (2011) reviews the use of MCDA, together with geographic information systems, for the management of diseases, and shows a different application of MCDA, that of the geographical area based assessment for a given threat.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

An integrated process and management tools for ranking multiple emerging threats to animal health

Vilas

Voller

Montibeller

et al. 2013

Preventive Veterinary Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Additional Information:• This paper was accepted for publication in the journal Preventive Vet- Del Rio, V., Voller, F., Montibeller, G., Franco, L. A., Sribhashyam, S., Watson, E., Hartley, M., & Gibbens, J.2013. An integrated process and management tools for ranking multiple emerging threats to animal health. Abstract: The UK's Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs supports the use of systematic tools for the prioritisation of known and well defined animal diseases to facilitate long and medium term planning of surveillance and disease control activities. The recognition that emerging events were not covered by the existing disease-specific approaches led to the establishment of the Veterinary Risk Group (VRG), constituted of government officials and supporting structures, the risk management cycle and the emerging threat highlight report (ETHiR), to facilitate the identification, reporting and assessment of emerging threats to UK's animal health. Since its inception in November 2009 to the end of February 2011, the VRG reviewed 111 threats and vulnerabilities (T&V) reported through ETHiR. In July 2010 a decision support system based on multi-criteria-decision-analysis (MCDA) improved ETHiR to allow the systematic prioritisation of emerging T&V. The DSS, known as e-THiR, allows the regular ranking of emerging T&V by calculating a set of measurement indices related to the actual impact, possible impact on public perception, and level of available capabilities associated with every T&V. The systematic characterisation of the processes leading to the assessment of T&V by the VRG has led to a consistent, auditable and transparent approach to the identification and assessment of emerging risks. The use of MCDA to manage a portfolio of emerging risks represents a different and novel application of MCDA in a health related context. This paper describes and discusses the characterisation and management of emerging risks by the VRG since its inception, and results from a pilot application of the e-THiR system to a reduced set of emerging threats.

show abstract

“…The iterative process of structured decision making breaks a complex process into 5 key steps: (1) identification of the overall goal (i.e., the decision to be made), (2) formulation of objectives (or criteria), (3) development of management options (or alternatives), (4) estimation of consequences associated with each alternative, and (5) evaluation of trade-offs and selection of preferred alternatives (Hammond et al, 1999;Hurley et al, 2009;Liu et al, 2010Liu et al, , 2012Proctor and Drechsler, 2006;Walshe and Burgman, 2010).…”

Section: The Structured Decision Making Approachmentioning

confidence: 99%