Upload
gregory-jennings
View
19
Download
4
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Application of Structured Decision Making to the Consideration of Multiple Objectives in Fishery Resource Management. North Aleutian Basin Energy-Fisheries Workshop Anchorage Marriott Downtown Hotel Anchorage, Alaska, USA March 18–19, 2008 Graham Long ( [email protected] ). Overview. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
North Aleutian Basin Energy-Fisheries Workshop
Anchorage Marriott Downtown Hotel
Anchorage, Alaska, USA
March 18–19, 2008
Graham Long ([email protected])
Application of Structured Decision Making to the Consideration of Multiple Objectives in Fishery Resource Management
22
22
22
22
2
Overview
Why Structured Decision Making? Example of SDM applied to Fishery
Resource Management: Cultus Lake Sockeye
Lessons Learned Initial Thoughts on Possible Application to
North Aleutian Basin Energy-Fisheries Issues
2
33
33
33
33
3
Why Use Structured Decision Making?
Resource management decisions are almost always multi-attribute problems
That is, they have implications for a wide variety of end-points
Impacts to various environmental endpoints Economic impacts Social and cultural impacts
Any particular management alternative will affect each of these in different ways
3
44
44
44
44
4
Why Use Structured Decision Making?
Structured Decision Making can be defined as the formal study of trade-offs – the important differences between alternatives, and what they mean to people
Structured Decision Making and Decision Analysis are largely synonymous
The term ‘SDM’ is preferred in the BC government and in the US Fish & Wildlife Service / Dept of Interior
4
55
55
55
55
5
What is Structured Decision Making?
Based on principles of Decision Analysis and Multi-attribute Utility Theory (MAUT)
well developed axiomatic structure for how decisions (individual and group) should be made
“The formal use of common sense for decision problems that are too complex for the informal use of common sense” (R. Keeney, 1982)
Incorporates insights from Behavioral Decision Theory
how humans process information and evaluate options
importance of the decision context
5
66
66
66
66
6
Why Use Structured Decision Making?
Think you don’t make trade-offs? Common decisions we have to make:
What time to leave home for a meeting? Small house or long commute? Cheap car or safe car? Burger or salad?
All of these decisions involve making trade-offs
We usually evaluate these trade-offs implicitly How might we evaluate them explicitly?
6
77
77
77
77
7
Steps in Good Decision Making
Graham Long, 18 March 2008, Anchorage, Alaska 7
88
88
88
88
8
A Simple SDM Example
You need to purchase a flight ticket next week for a personal trip from Anchorage to Vancouver.
Graham Long, 18 March 2008, Anchorage, Alaska 8
99
99
99
99
9
A Simple SDM Example
What’s important to you? I don’t want to spend much money I don’t want hidden fees I don’t want to spend an extra day in Vancouver I want a direct flight I want easy check-ins I want decent leg room I want an aisle seat I want friendly service I am concerned about all the airline crashes
recently I am not comfortable flying with a new airline
Graham Long, 18 March 2008, Anchorage, Alaska 9
1010
1010
1010
1010
10
A Simple SDM Example
I don’t want to spend much money
I don’t want hidden fees I don’t want to spend an
extra day in Vancouver
I want a direct flight I want easy check-ins
I want decent leg room I want an aisle seat I want friendly service
I am concerned about all the airline crashes recently
I am not comfortable flying with a new airline
Graham Long, 18 March 2008, Anchorage, Alaska 10
Minimize Cost
Minimize Travel Time
Maximize Comfort
Maximize Safety
$ Total
Hours
Scale (5 = best, 0 = Worst)
# Accidents / 1 million take-offs (5 yr ave)
Issues Objectives Evaluation Criteria
1111
1111
1111
1111
11
A Simple SDM Example
Objective Indicator Units
Preferred Direction
AAir
Canada
B Transat
C Vintage
Air
Minimize Cost
$ Lower is better
$2,000 $1,500 $400
Minimize Travel Time
Hours Lower is better
8-9 13-15 12-64
Maximize Comfort
(5 = best, 0 = worst)
Higher is better
4 4 ? 0-5
Maximize Safety
# Accidents / 1 million take-offs (5 yr ave)
Lower is Better
3.8 3.6 ? 0 – 40(?)
Graham Long, 18 March 2008, Anchorage, Alaska 11
1212
1212
1212
1212
12
A Simple SDM Example
Objective Indicator Units
Preferred Direction
AAir
Canada
B Transat
C Vintage
Air
Minimize Cost
$ Lower is better
$2,000 $1,500 $400
Minimize Travel Time
Hours Lower is better
8-9 13-15 12-64
Maximize Comfort
(5 = best, 0 = worst)
Higher is better
4 4 ? 0-5
Maximize Safety
# Accidents / 1 million take-offs (5 yr ave)
Lower is Better
3.8 3.6 ? 0 – 40(?)
Graham Long, 18 March 2008, Anchorage, Alaska 12
1313
1313
1313
1313
13
A Simple SDM Example
Objective Indicator Units
Preferred Direction
AAir
Canada
B Transat
C Vintage
Air
Minimize Cost
$ Lower is better
$2,000 $1,500 $400
Minimize Travel Time
Hours Lower is better
8-9 13-15 12-64
Maximize Comfort
(5 = best, 0 = worst)
Higher is better
4 4 ? 0-5
Maximize Safety
# Accidents / 1 million take-offs (5 yr ave)
Lower is Better
3.8 3.6 ? 0 – 40(?)
Graham Long, 18 March 2008, Anchorage, Alaska 13
Which flight would YOU choose?
1414
1414
1414
1414
14
Why Use Structured Decision Making?
This is simply a more formalized version of what we all do implicitly
“formal use of common sense…”
But what happens when decisions are too complex and too important for the informal use of common sense?
Graham Long, 18 March 2008, Anchorage, Alaska 14
1515
1515
1515
1515
15
Why Use Structured Decision Making?
An explicit approach to understanding trade-offs can help:
When there is not just ONE decision maker, but a panel of people with different viewpoints
When we desire to explore a problem transparently and accountably
When we want to set up a framework that can be updated on an ongoing basis
When we want to separate FACTS about expected outcomes from VALUES about which would be better
15
Undertaken in partnership with:Robin Gregory (Decision Research, Value Scope Research)
Example of SDM applied to Fishery Resource Management: Cultus Lake Sockeye
1717
1717
1717
1717
17
Steps in Good Decision Making
Graham Long, 18 March 2008, Anchorage, Alaska 17
1818
1818
1818
1818
18
Cultus Lake Sockeye
18
1919
1919
1919
1919
19
Cultus Lake Sockeye
Client: Fisheries and Oceans Canada Multiple interests:
High visibility species, high importance to Conservation, commercial fishers, and First Nations
Worked with multi-stakeholder committee (approx. 20 people) over 1 month period in 2006
Key trade-off: Environmental protection – of a listed species Economic impacts – to commercial fishing
19
2020
2020
2020
2020
20
Cultus Lake Sockeye
Data quality variable (and controversial) Multiple management options
commercial fleet exploitation rate captive breeding options freshwater programs
What Cultus Lake management alternative represents the 'best balance' across multiple objectives for 2006 season?
20
2121
2121
2121
2121
21
Steps in Good Decision Making
Graham Long, 18 March 2008, Anchorage, Alaska 21
2222
2222
2222
2222
22
Cultus Lake Sockeye
OBJECTIVES (Slide 1 of 2) Sockeye conservation
Probability of meeting Recovery Plan objectives 1 and 2
Returns in years 2010 and average of 2016-19 Probability of extirpation by 2036 % Enhanced in 2010 and average of 2016-19
Costs Total costs over 12 years, levelized No cost allocation attempted
22
2323
2323
2323
2323
23
Cultus Lake Sockeye
OBJECTIVES (Slide 2 of 2) Catch
Traditional commercial catch Commercial TAC available upstream of Vedder Total First Nations Food, Social and Ceremonial
Catch
Jobs Employment opportunities directly related to
enhancement and freshwater projects
23
2424
2424
2424
2424
24
Steps in Good Decision Making
Graham Long, 18 March 2008, Anchorage, Alaska 24
2525
2525
2525
2525
25
Cultus Lake Sockeye
ALTERNATIVES Alternatives created by assembling ‘blocks’ of
options: Cultus Exploitation Rate % Enhancement options Freshwater projects options
Make use of strategy tables to encourage creative thinking. Two examples:
25
2626
2626
2626
2626
26
Cultus Lake Sockeye
Cultus Exploitation Rate %
Enhancement Freshwater projects options
5 None None
10 Current Captive Brood Current Milfoil Removal
20 Double Current Capacity
Current Pikeminnow
30 Maximum Enhancement
Large Milfoil Removal
40 Large Pikeminnow Removal
Alternative 1: “Status Quo”
26
2727
2727
2727
2727
27
Cultus Lake Sockeye
Cultus Exploitation Rate %
Enhancement Freshwater projects options
5 None None
10 Current Captive Brood Current Milfoil Removal
20 Double Current Capacity
Current Pikeminnow
30 Maximum Enhancement
Large Milfoil Removal
40 Large Pikeminnow Removal
Alternative 2: “Spread the Pain 2”
27
2828
2828
2828
2828
28
Cultus Lake Sockeye
Exploration of alternatives through iterative SDM process: creation, analysis, elimination
Iteration 1 Created 6 alternatives
Iteration 2 Reviewed these 6 and created 3 more
Iteration 3 Reviewed all 9, eliminated 6 because they were
dominated (others the same or better on objectives) Agreed on several key components for all alternatives
28
2929
2929
2929
2929
29
Cultus Lake Sockeye
29
3030
3030
3030
3030
30
Cultus Lake Sockeye
Recognition of need to simplify the decision problem through elimination of relevant objectives and alternatives.
Do this via exploration of Redundancy: where performance measures do not
vary across alternatives Dominance: where one alternative is better than or
equal to all (or, by collective agreement, nearly all) aspects of another
30
3131
3131
3131
3131
31
Cultus Lake Sockeye
Three alternatives remained at the end of this process
31
3232
3232
3232
3232
32
Cultus Lake Sockeye
One alternative favoured by group (8) Though disagreement on some factors remained
Agreement on many common features Detailed agreements and disagreements at end of
process
Remaining issues settled outside the process with other parties who had chosen not to participate
32
3333
3333
3333
3333
33
Cultus Lake Sockeye
Key Messages Although an endangered species problem, SDM
examined trade-offs across ALL significantly affected objectives
Considered a large number of alternatives Best available science used to populate the
consequence matrix People agreed on the matrix, disagreed on some
aspects of what was important Transparent process
33
Lessons Learned
3535
3535
3535
3535
35
Lessons learned
We have applied this approach to a large number of multi-attribute resource management problems, including:
Hydro-electric facility operations Including Columbia and Peace Rivers
Long range energy planning Fisheries planning Fish habitat management planning Various wildlife management issues Initiating a major project concerning the use of
the Athabasca River in Alberta by oil companies
Graham Long, 18 March 2008, Anchorage, Alaska 35
3636
3636
3636
3636
36
Lessons learned
Factors that tend to favour the success of an SDM approach to a multi-objective resource management problem…
Graham Long, 18 March 2008, Anchorage, Alaska 36
3737
3737
3737
3737
37
Success Factors
1) There is Agreement from All Sides to Commit to the Process
Can be many reasons and/or preconditions for this:
Goodwill has previously been established between participants OR
Not so much goodwill but SDM is seen as the ‘least worst’ process option!
High level champions in organizations Clearly understood role of process committee
and its findings
Graham Long, 18 March 2008, Anchorage, Alaska 37
3838
3838
3838
3838
38
Success Factors
2) Participants are willing to trust, or at least to suspend scepticism, of the process
An independent person (Decision Analyst?) leads the process:
Is appointed as the ‘guardian of the process’ Reports to committee, not funders
Leads an analytical team that is ‘firewalled’ from participants
Has capacity to ensure ALL participants can understand materials and participate effectively
Graham Long, 18 March 2008, Anchorage, Alaska 38
3939
3939
3939
3939
39
Success Factors
3) The process is given sufficient time and resources
The process helps build relationships through face to face contact OVER TIME
Understanding complex issues takes time and effort
Short changing the process can be counter-productive
Consider how long any process might take without a structured approach!
Graham Long, 18 March 2008, Anchorage, Alaska 39
Thoughts on North Aleutian Basin Energy-Fisheries Issues
4141
4141
4141
4141
41
Thoughts on North Aleutian Basin Energy-Fisheries Issues
If you choose to undertake any kind of analytical approach, some suggestions are:
Graham Long, 18 March 2008, Anchorage, Alaska 41
4242
4242
4242
4242
42
Thoughts on North Aleutian Basin Energy-Fisheries Issues
Think hard (and collaboratively) about defining the problem
There are many forms the problem could take All parties must buy into the wording of the
problem
Graham Long, 18 March 2008, Anchorage, Alaska 42
4343
4343
4343
4343
43
Thoughts on North Aleutian Basin Energy-Fisheries Issues
If you adopt a ‘precautionary’ approach remember:
Being precautionary with one endpoint usually means being profligate with another!
This may (or may not be) OK The point is:
Make trade-offs clear!
Graham Long, 18 March 2008, Anchorage, Alaska 43
4444
4444
4444
4444
44
Thoughts on North Aleutian Basin Energy-Fisheries Issues
Uncertainty plays a central role in all management approaches
Not all uncertainties are significant to the decision at hand
“Don’t count the hairs in the horse’s tail”
SDM has many techniques for identifying, characterizing and communicating key uncertainties to decision makers
Graham Long, 18 March 2008, Anchorage, Alaska 44
Closing Remarks
4646
4646
4646
4646
46
Structured Decision Making
Focuses on what matters Improves the quality & transparency of
judgments Generates creative alternatives Explores trade-offs and uncertainties Ensures a decision-relevant information
base Provides insight: does not “make” the
decision Provides a framework for planning and
consultation
Graham Long, 18 March 2008, Anchorage, Alaska 46
4747
4747
4747
4747
47
Contact
Graham [email protected], Compass Resource Management Ltd.200 - 1260 Hamilton St.Vancouver, B.C. V6B 2S8Canada
Phone: 604-641-2875Fax: 604-641-2878www.compassrm.com
Graham Long, 18 March 2008, Anchorage, Alaska 47