Using Expert Judgments to Explore Robust Alternatives for Forest Management under Climate Change
- 7 May 2012
- journal article
- Published by Wiley in Risk Analysis
- Vol. 32 (12), 2098-2112
- https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2012.01822.x
Abstract
We develop and apply a judgment-based approach to selecting robust alternatives, which are defined here as reasonably likely to achieve objectives, over a range of uncertainties. The intent is to develop an approach that is more practical in terms of data and analysis requirements than current approaches, informed by the literature and experience with probability elicitation and judgmental forecasting. The context involves decisions about managing forest lands that have been severely affected by mountain pine beetles in British Columbia, a pest infestation that is climate-exacerbated. A forest management decision was developed as the basis for the context, objectives, and alternatives for land management actions, to frame and condition the judgments. A wide range of climate forecasts, taken to represent the 10-90% levels on cumulative distributions for future climate, were developed to condition judgments. An elicitation instrument was developed, tested, and revised to serve as the basis for eliciting probabilistic three-point distributions regarding the performance of selected alternatives, over a set of relevant objectives, in the short and long term. The elicitations were conducted in a workshop comprising 14 regional forest management specialists. We employed the concept of stochastic dominance to help identify robust alternatives. We used extensive sensitivity analysis to explore the patterns in the judgments, and also considered the preferred alternatives for each individual expert. The results show that two alternatives that are more flexible than the current policies are judged more likely to perform better than the current alternatives on average in terms of stochastic dominance. The results suggest judgmental approaches to robust decision making deserve greater attention and testing.Keywords
This publication has 31 references indexed in Scilit:
- Good decisions, bad decisions: the interaction of process and outcome in evaluations of decision qualityJournal of Risk Research, 2010
- Reducing Overconfidence in the Interval Judgments of ExpertsRisk Analysis, 2010
- Incorporating climate change adaptation considerations into forest management planning in the boreal forestInternational Forestry Review, 2007
- ROBUST DECISION‐MAKING UNDER SEVERE UNCERTAINTY FOR CONSERVATION MANAGEMENTEcological Applications, 2005
- Overconfidence in Interval Estimates.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 2004
- A Framework to Guide Thinking and Analysis Regarding Climate Change PoliciesRisk Analysis, 2001
- Subjective judgements by climate expertsEnvironmental Science & Technology, 1995
- Seven components of judgmental forecasting skill: Implications for research and the improvement of forecastsJournal of Forecasting, 1994
- Eliciting probabilities from experts in complex technical problemsIEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 1991
- Task influences on judgemental forecastingScandinavian Journal of Psychology, 1987