View
35
Download
0
Category
Tags:
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
"Review of major types of uncertainty in fisheries modeling and how to deal with them". Randall M. Peterman School of Resource and Environmental Management (REM) Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada. National Ecosystem Modeling Workshop II, - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
"Review of major types of uncertainty in fisheries modeling and how to deal with them"
Randall M. Peterman
School of Resource and Environmental Management (REM)
Simon Fraser University,Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada
National Ecosystem Modeling Workshop II, Annapolis, Maryland, 25-27 August 2009
Outline
• Five sources of uncertainty - Problems create - What scientists have done
• Adapting those approaches for ecosystem modelling
• Recommendations
Single-speciesstock assessments
Single-speciesstock assessments
General risk assessment methods
Uncertaintiesconsidered
Single-speciesstock assessments
General risk assessment methods
Uncertaintiesconsidered
My background
Single-speciesstock assessments
Scientific advice: including risk communication
Decision makers, stakeholders
Risk management
Uncertaintiesconsidered
General risk assessment methods
Single-speciesstock assessments
Decision makers, stakeholders
Risk management
Multi-species ecosystemmodels Impressive!!
Uncertaintiesconsidered
Scientific advice: including risk communication
General risk assessment methods
Single-speciesstock assessments
Decision makers, stakeholders
Risk management
Uncertaintiesconsidered
Uncertaintiesconsidered
Scientific advice: including risk communication
General risk assessment methods
Multi-species ecosystemmodels
Single-speciesstock assessments Uncertainties
considered
Decision makers, stakeholders
Risk management
Scientific advice: including risk communication
Multi-species ecosystemmodels
Uncertaintiesconsidered
General risk assessment methods
2. Provide broad strategic advice
3. Provide specific tactical advice
Purposes of ecosystem models from NEMoW 1
1. Improve conceptual understanding
Uncertainties are pervasive ...
1. Natural variability
Sources of uncertainty
Uncertainties
1. Natural variability
2. Observation error (bias and imprecision)
Sources of uncertainty
Uncertainties
3. Structural complexity
1. Natural variability
2. Observation error (bias and imprecision)
Sources of uncertainty
Uncertainties
3. Structural complexity
1. Natural variability
2. Observation error (bias and imprecision)
Sources of uncertainty
UncertaintiesResult:Parameteruncertainty
3. Structural complexity
1. Natural variability
4. Outcomeuncertainty(deviation from target)
2. Observation error (bias and imprecision)
Sources of uncertainty
UncertaintiesResult:Parameteruncertainty
3. Structural complexity
1. Natural variability
Result:Imperfect forecastsof system's dynamics
2. Observation error (bias and imprecision)
Sources of uncertainty
UncertaintiesResult:Parameteruncertainty
4. Outcomeuncertainty(deviation from target)
3. Structural complexity
1. Natural variability
5. Inadequate communicationamong scientists,decision makers,and stakeholders
Result:Imperfect forecastsof system's dynamics
2. Observation error (bias and imprecision)
Sources of uncertainty
UncertaintiesResult:Parameteruncertainty
4. Outcomeuncertainty(deviation from target)
3. Structural complexity
1. Natural variability
5. Inadequate communicationamong scientists,decision makers,and stakeholders
Result:Imperfect forecastsof system's dynamics
2. Observation error (bias and imprecision)
Sources of uncertainty
Uncertainties
Result:Poorlyinformed decisions
Result:Parameteruncertainty
4. Outcomeuncertainty(deviation from target)
Uncertainties
Biological risks
(ecosystems)
Economic risks
(industry)
Social risks
(coastalcommunities)
Risk:
Magnitude of variable/event and probability of that magnitude occurring
Sensitivity analyses across:
1. Which components to include
3. Parameter values
2. Structural forms of relationships
4. Management objectives
5. Environmental conditions
• Focus: - Which parts most affect management decisions?- Which parts are highest priority for more data?
6. Management options
2008 Mutton snapperU.S. South Atlantic & Gulf of Mexico
SSB / SSBF30%
F / F30%
Ove
rfis
hin
g
Overfished
1. Natural variability
2. Observation error
3. Unclear structure of fishery system
4. Outcome uncertainty
5. Inadequate communication
Sources of uncertaintyProblems
Resolution
UncertaintyProblems created by
not adequately accounting for that uncertainty
1. Natural variation in
space and time
• Poor estimates of model parameters and variables
• Inappropriate dynamics of model due to nonstationarity: - "Regime shifts" in productivity - "Phase shifts" in system structure
1. Simulate stochastically
2. Make parameters a function of age, size, density, ...
3. Include other components (static or dynamic) - Predators, prey, competitors - Bycatch/discards - Environmental variables...
1. Natural variability
What scientists have done to deal with ...
1. Natural variability
2. Observation error
3. Unclear structure of fishery system
4. Outcome uncertainty
5. Inadequate communication
Sources of uncertainty
Uncertainty Problems created
2. Observation error (bias and imprecision in input data)
• Biased/imprecise estimates of model parameters - Incorrect functional form of error term
• Biased output indicators
• Wrong probability distributions
1. Assume % of total variance due to observation error
2. Conduct sensitivity analyses
3. Use hierarchical models that "pool" information to help "average out" annual observation error
- Jerome Fiechter et al. using hierarchical Bayesian models on NEMURO (NPZD-based)
2. Observation error
What scientists have done to deal with ...
Stocknumber Pink salmon
-0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0
1
10
20
30
40Separate single- stock analyses
Multi-stock, mixed-effects model
Alaska
B.C., Wash.
South
North
, change in salmon productivity, loge(R/S),
per oC increase in summer sea-surface temperature
i
Mueter et al. (2002a)
4. Separately estimate natural variation and observation error -- Errors-in-variables models
-- State-space models-- Kalman filter
Example 1: tracking nonstationary productivity parameter (Ricker value)
2. Observation error ... (continued)
0
1
2
3
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Year
Productivity parameter
Low High Decreasing
0
1
2
3
0 20 40 60 80 100
"True"Standard methodKalman filter
Year
Simulation test
Productivity(Ricker parameter)
Peterman et al. (2000)
• Kalman filter with random-walk system equation was best across all types of nonstationarity
Example 2 of observation error and natural variation
Simplest possible model: spawner-recruit relationshipSu and Peterman (2009, in prep.)
- Used operating model to determine statistical properties of various parameter-estimation schemes:-- Bias-- Precision-- Coverage probabilities (accuracy of estimated
width of probability interval for a parameter)
2. Observation error ... (continued)
Operating model (simulator to test methods)
User-specified "true" underlying parameter values
("What if ...?")
Test performance of an estimator
Operating model (simulator to test methods)
Generate "observed data"from natural variation and observation error
Parameters estimated
User-specified "true" underlying parameter values
("What if ...?")
Test performance of an estimator
Operating model (simulator to test methods)
Compare"true" and
estimated values
Parameters estimated
User-specified "true" underlying parameter values
("What if ...?")
Test performance of an estimator
Generate "observed data"from natural variation and observation error
Operating model (simulator to test methods)
Compare"true" and
estimated values
200trials
Parameters estimated
User-specified "true" underlying parameter values
("What if ...?")
Test performance of an estimator
Generate "observed data"from natural variation and observation error
Proportion of total variance due to measurement error
True = 2
0.25 0.75 0.25 0.75 0.25 0.75
% relativebiasin
Harvest-rate history Low Variable High
Extended Kalman filterErrors-in-variablesBayesian state-spaceStandard Ricker
X
*
• Results also change with true
-500
50
150
250
Results for 95% coverage probabilities- Uncertainty in estimated is too narrow (overconfident) for all 4 estimation methods
Ricker
Probability
Actual
Estimated
- Trade-off between bias and variance (Adkison 2009, Ecol. Applic. 19:198)
Recommendation• Test parameter estimation methods before applying them (Hilborn and Walters 1992)
• Use results with humility, caution - Parameter estimates for ecosystem models may inadvertently be quite biased!
1. Natural variability
2. Observation error
3. Unclear structure of fishery system
4. Outcome uncertainty
5. Inadequate communication
Sources of uncertainty
Uncertainty Problems created
3. Unclear structure of fishery system (model uncertainty, structural uncertainty, model misspecification)
• Biased/imprecise parameters
• Wrong system dynamics
• Overconfidence in results if only use one model
1. Choose single "best" model among alternatives1a. Informally1b. Formally using model selection criterion (AICc)
3. Unclear structure of fishery system
What scientists have done to deal with ...
Caution!! - Not appropriate for giving management advice- Asymmetric loss functions
(Walters and Martell 2004, p. 101)
0.2
0.6
1.0
A B
SSB / SSBmsy
Case 2Case 1
SpeciesA B
Asymmetric loss: Which case is preferred?
Spawning favoured Harvest favoured
H
H
T+Q
R
T Q
H T+Q T
Q
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
D
C
B
A
O:U ratio
0.25 0.5 1 2 4
0.30 1.44
0.68 2.09
1.18 1.33
Cummings (2009)
0.25 0.5 1.0 2 4 Preference ratio
Symmetric Asymmetric withharvest obj. favored
Asymmetric withspawning obj. favored
Recommendation• To develop appropriate indicators, ecosystem scientists should understand asymmetry in managers' objectives, especially given many species.
Fraser River Early Stuart sockeye salmon:Best "management-adjustment" model (H, T, Q, T+Q)
3. Unclear structure of fishery system
What scientists have done to deal with ...
1c. Adaptive management experiment - Sainsbury et al. in Australia
More commonly, we have to consider a range of alternative models ...
1. Choose single "best" model among alternatives ... ...
3. Unclear structure of fishery system ... (cont'd.)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.70.10.20.30.40.50.6 0.7
0.100.150.20
0.250.30
0.35
SSB ('000 t)
F * 1000
VPA
Stock-synthesis
Delay-diff.
(R. Mohn 2009)SSB (thousands of tonnes)
F*1000
Mvalues
Eastern Scotian Shelf cod (closed in mid-1990s)
2. Retain multiple models; conduct sensitivity analyses2a. Analyze separately
2. Retain multiple models; conduct sensitivity analyses2a. Analyze separately2b. Combine predictions from alternative models
- Unweighted model averaging - Weighted with AIC weights or posterior probab.,
then calculate expected values of indicators
• But weighting assumes managers useexpected value objectives
- Many use mini-max objectives (i.e., choose action with lowest chance of worst-case outcome)
3. Unclear structure of fishery system ... (cont'd.)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
0
50
100
150
0.5 1.00.750.25 1.250.50.25
Probabilitywith manage-ment action A
0
0.05
0.1
0.2
Limit referencepoint
Expected SSB (weighted average)
0.05
00
Worst-caseoutcome(unlikely, but choose action withlowest probability )
SSB/SSBtarget
Recommendation• Ecosystem scientists should work iteratively with managers to find the most useful indicators to reflect management objectives.
2. Retain multiple models; conduct sensitivity analyses ...
...2c. Evaluate alternative ecosystem assessment
models by using an operating model to determine their statistical properties
(e.g., Fulton et al. 2005 re: community indicators)
3. Unclear structure of fishery system ... (cont'd.)
2. Retain multiple models; conduct sensitivity analyses......... 2d. Evaluate alternative ecosystem assessment
models within closed-loop simulation (MSE) to determine robust management strategies acrossrange of operating models
Caution!!!! Elaborated upon later.
3. Unclear structure of fishery system ... (cont'd.)
3. Unclear structure of fishery system ... (cont'd.)
Recommendation• Ecosystem scientists should compare management advice from multiple models.
• Models are "sketches" of real systems, not mirrors- Only essential features
Appropriate ecosystem model sketches?
ESAMMRMGADGETSEAPODYMEwEAtlantis...?
Appropriate ecosystem model sketches?
ESAMMRMGADGETSEAPODYMEwEAtlantis...?
• "A model should be as simple as possible, but no simpler than necessary" [and no more complex either!]
- Morgan and Henrion (1990)
Appropriate ecosystem model sketches?
ESAMMRMGADGETSEAPODYMEwEAtlantis...?
• "A model should be as simple as possible, but no simpler than necessary" [and no more complex either!]
- Morgan and Henrion (1990)
Appropriate model complexity depends on:- Type of questions/advice (Plagányi 2007)- Knowledge and data
Model complexity
Effectiveness, predictive power
(Fulton et al. 2003, others)
"Adaptive radiation" of ecosystem models
HighLow
Low
High
• Build multiple (nested) models of a given system- Which model is best for the questions?- Yodzis (1998) could omit 44% of interactions
Recommendation: How ecosystem scientists can deal with structural uncertainty ... (continued)
• Conduct closed-loop management strategy evaluations(MSEs) across a wide range of hypothesizedoperating models of aquatic ecosystem
- "Best practice" -- Plagányi (2007)-- Tivoli meeting (FAO 2008)-- NEMoW I report (Townsend et al. 2008)
1. Natural variability
2. Observation error
3. Unclear structure of fishery system
4. Outcome uncertainty
5. Inadequate communication
Sources of uncertainty
Uncertainty Problems created
4. Outcome uncertainty, i.e., deviation from target (implementation uncertainty, implementation error, management uncertainty) Results from:
- Non-compliance
- Inappropriate regulations
- Physical and biological factors affecting q
• Overconfidence in:
- Meeting management objectives
- Avoiding undesirable outcomes
• Surprises!
1. Empirically estimate it (historical deviations from targets)
4. Outcome uncertainty
What scientists have done to deal with ...
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.00.0
0.4
0.8Target
Realized
"Outcome uncertainty"Early Stuart sockeye salmon, B.C. (1986-2003)
Harvest rate
Forecast of adults (millions)Holt and Peterman (2006)
Outcome uncertainty:Both imprecise and biased
2. Add outcome uncertainty as a stochastic process
3. Conduct sensitivity analyses on nature of outcome uncertainty
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.9
2.0
Relativeaveragecatch
6%
Ricker
Ricker AR(1)
Kalman filter
Distance-based HBM
Non-spatial HBM
None
Outcome uncertainty
MSE with CLIM2, a 15-popul. salmon model
(Dorner et al.2009, in press)
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.9
2.0
6%
Ricker
Ricker AR(1)
Kalman filter
Distance-based HBM
Non-spatial HBM
None Imprecise and unbiased
Outcome uncertainty
MSE with CLIM2, a 15-popul. salmon model
(Dorner et al.2009, in press)
Relativeaveragecatch
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.9
2.0
None Imprecise and unbiased
6%
Ricker
Ricker AR(1)
Kalman filter
Distance-based HBM
Non-spatial HBM
24% decrease
Outcome uncertainty
Imprecise andbiased
MSE with CLIM2, a 15-popul. salmon model
(Dorner et al.2009, in press)
Relativeaveragecatch
1. Natural variability
2. Observation error
3. Unclear structure of fishery system
4. Outcome uncertainty
5. Inadequate communication
Sources of uncertainty
Uncertainty Problems created
5. Inadequate communication among scientists, decision makers, and stakeholders
• Missing indicators due to unclear operational objectives
• Misinterpretation
• Overconfidence by decision makers if uncertainties not clear
• Decision makers may under- value scientific advice
What scientists have done to deal with ...
1. Work iteratively with stakeholders and decision makers - Clarify management objectives and indicators
-- Maximize expected value, mini-max, or ...?
2. Conduct sensitivity analyses on mgmt. objectives
5. Inadequate communication
-- Cumulative probability distributions
-- Frequency format, not decimal probability format
5. Inadequate communication ... (continued)
(due to six interpretations of "probability", only one of which is "chance")
Recommendation:3. Show indicators with uncertainties - Use cognitive psychologists' findings about how people think about uncertainties and risks
“Chance" of an outcome for a given set of management regulations:
Probability format"There is a probability of 0.2 that SSB will drop below its limit reference point"
“Chance" of an outcome for a given set of management regulations:
Probability format"There is a probability of 0.2 that SSB will drop below its limit reference point"
Frequency format"In two out of every 10 situations like this, SSB will drop below its limit reference point".
“Chance" of an outcome for a given set of management regulations:
Probability format"There is a probability of 0.2 that SSB will drop below its limit reference point"
Frequency format"In two out of every 10 situations like this, SSB will drop below its limit reference point".
Gerd Gigerenzer et al.
4. Creatively display multiple indicators, and trade-offs among them
5. Inadequate communication ... (continued)
Recommendation
(Fulton, Smith, and Smith 2007)
Microfauna
Bycatch
Target
Habitat
Pelagic: demersal
Shark
TEP (marine mammals, seabirds)
Microfauna
Bycatch
Target
Habitat
Pelagic: demersal
Shark
TEP (marine mammals, seabirds)
Bycatch
Target
Habitat
Pelagic: demersal
Piscivore:planktivore
Bycatch
Target
Habitat
Pelagic: demersal
Piscivore:planktivore
Scenario 1
Scenario 4
Radar plots,kite diagrams
Piscivore:planktivore
Biomass size spectra
Biomass size spectra Piscivore:planktivore
HAD
COD
WHG
PLESOL
MACNOP
SAN
HER
POK
Status Quo Effort
Bpa
HADCODWHG
PLESOL
MACNOP
SAN
HER
POK
Precautionary Effort
Bpa
Collie et al. (2003)
Bpa = precautionary biomass
AMOEBA plots for North Sea
-800
-600
-400
-200
0
0 200 400 600 800 10000.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
100
300
500
700
Average spawners (1000s)Yukon R.fall chumsalmon
Target spawners (in 1000’s)
Collie et al. (in prep.)
Harvest rateon run exceedingtarget spawners
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0 200 400 600 8000.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
-200
-150
-100
-50
0
0 200 400 600 8000.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
-800
-600
-400
-200
0
0 200 400 600 8000.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
-200
-150
-100
-50
0
0 200 400 600 8000.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0Average spawners (1000s)Yukon R.
fall chumsalmon
Avg. subsistence catch (1000s)
Avg. commercial catch (1000s)% years commercial closed
100
500
700 180
20 100
40
80
80
200
100100
60
60150
140300 60
Target spawners (in 1000’s)
Harvest rateon run exceedingtarget spawners
Booshehrian, Moeller, et al.Spawning target (1000s) of chum salmon
Pro
po
rtio
n h
arve
sted
Avg. subsistence catch (1000s)
Avg
. co
mm
erci
al
catc
h (
1000
s)Vismon software, in prep.
Comment on tradeoffs• Remind managers and stakeholders:
Low
High
Stated Actual
Uncertainty
Ecologicalindicators
Comment on tradeoffs• Remind managers and stakeholders:
Low
High
Stated Actual
Uncertainty
Socio-economicindicators
Ecologicalindicators
Stated Actual
Comment on tradeoffs• Remind managers and stakeholders:
- Apply same standards to economists/social scientists and ecologists!!!
Low
High
Stated Actual
Uncertainty
Socio-economicindicators
Ecologicalindicators
Stated Actual
1. Formal training:
Recommendations to deal with inadequate communication
2. "User studies" about effectiveness of communication methods
ScientistsDecision makersand stakeholders
3. Develop interactive, hierarchical information systems to show: - Management options - Consequences - Trade-offs - Uncertainties
4. Develop communications strategies like Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC):
Recommendations to deal with inadequate communication ...
IPCC
• Advises decision makers and stakeholders
• Communication challenges:
- Complexity - Uncertainty - Risks - Credibility
How IPCC solves these communication challenges
1. Multi-level information systems: IPCC (2007) reportsa. Aim at multiple audiencesb. Hierarchicalc. Numerous footnotes (~ hypertext links)d. Diverse graphics
IPCC (2007) reports
How IPCC solves these communication challenges ...
2. Standardized format for describing uncertaintiesassociated with "essential statements":
- Chance of an outcome- Confidence in that estimated chance of that outcome
- "...very high confidence that there is a high chance of ..."
- "We have medium confidence that ..."
• Similar to recent Marine Stewardship Council guidelines
1. Natural variability
2. Observation error
3. Unclear structure of fishery system
4. Outcome uncertainty
5. Inadequate communication
Sources of uncertainty
What scientists have done to deal with ...
• Simulations of entire fishery systems- Closed-loop simulations (Walters 1986) - Management strategy evaluations (MSEs) (Punt and Butterworth early 1990s) - Which management procedure is most robust
to uncertainties-- A single management procedure includes:
--- Data collection method--- Stock or ecosystem assessment model--- State-dependent harvest rule
Combination of first 4 sources of uncertainty
Closed-loop simulation or MSE: ~ flight simulator
Robustprocedures for responding to unexpectedevents
Unusualweather
Uncertainties
Randomevents
Equipmentfailure
Natural Aquatic System Sampling, data collection
Operating model such as Atlantis
Natural Aquatic System Sampling, data collection
ESAMMRMEwEGADGET...
Operating model such as Atlantis
Ecosystemassessment model
What What we we know don't know
Stakeholders
Natural Aquatic System Sampling, data collection
Decision makers(harvest rules)
Operating model such as Atlantis
Ecosystemassessment model
What What we we know don't know
Stakeholders
Natural Aquatic System
Managementobjectives
Sampling, data collection
Harvesting
Fishing regulations(harvest quotas, closed areas, ...)
Decision makers(harvest rules)
Operating model such as Atlantis
Ecosystemassessment model
What What we we know don't know
Stakeholders
Natural Aquatic System
Observation error
Managementobjectives
Outcome uncertainty
Decision makers(harvest rules)
Sampling, data collection
Harvesting
Naturalvariability
Structuraluncertainty
Fishing regulations(harvest quotas, closed areas, ...)
Peterman (2004)
Operating model
Entire diagram = closed-loop simulation (MSE)
Inadequate communic.
Ecosystemassessment model
What What we we know don't know
MSEs include iterating across all major hypotheses about operating model
Result of MSE:Identifies relative merits of management procedures
for meeting management objectives
Caution: Substantial challenges ahead!
1. Characterizing operating model - Range of alternative hypotheses- Reliability of predictions from ecosystem models- Nonstationary environment (what if ...?)
2. Simulating ecosystem assessment process based on "observed" data using GADGET, an ESAM, ... - Automation of assessment process
3. Engaging scientists with decision makers, stakeholders
Conducting MSEs of ecosystem models
4. Simulating outcome uncertainty (deviation from target)
- Lack of data
5. Simulating state-dependent decision-making process- Lack of clear operational ecosystem objectives and indicators
- Complex objectives: optimize for one, make tradeoffs for others (Smith et al., Mapstone et al., and others
in Dec. 2008 Fisheries Research)
plus ...
Conducting MSEs of ecosystem models
(Link et al. 2002)
Can indicators of ecosystems from PCAs be used as measures of system state for input to harvest rules?
A C
Ecosystem status (similarity to PCA category)
F
A B C
B
PC 1
PC
2
6. Interpreting results- Across multiple indicators and sensitivity analyses
7. Computations- CPU time
Conducting MSEs of ecosystem models
1. Need standards for evaluating reliability of models
2. If fitting ecosystem models to data, use operating models to check adequacy of estimation methods
3. Evaluate how much difference will be made by proposed "improvements" to ecosystem models (more complex not necessarily better)
4. Clarify operational management objectives and indicators that reflect ecosystem concerns
5. Analyze multiple models
Recommendations for next steps for ecosystem models
6. If use MSE approach (Tivoli, Plagányi, NEMoW I) - Start simply (ESAMs, MRMs) for assessment models (Butterworth and Plagányi 2004)
- Choose operating model (e.g., Atlantis) - Build experience- Determine feasibility of MSEs for evaluating more
complex assessment models (GADGET, EwE, ...)
7. Add to "Best practices" - Standardized protocol for determining performance of multiple assessment models for a given aquatic
ecosystem. - Training/gaming workshops to improve communication
Recommendations for next steps for ecosystem models
Reminders
• Sensitivity analyses should focus on finding which components cause changes in management advice.
• We probably underestimate the magnitude of uncertainty in estimates of parameters, state variables
• C.S. Holling: "The domain of our ignorance is larger than the domain of our knowledge."
Recommended