| 1. |
- Mukherjee, Nibedita, et al.
(author)
-
Comparison of techniques for eliciting views and judgements in decision‐making
- 2018
-
In: Methods in Ecology and Evolution. - 2041-210X. ; 9, s. 54-63
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- 1. Decision-making is a complex process that typically includes a series of stages: identifying the issue, considering possible options, making judgements and then making a decision by combining information and values. The current status quo relies heavily on the informational aspect of decision-making with little or no emphasis on the value positions that affect decisions.2. There is increasing realization of the importance of adopting rigorous methods for each stage such that the information, views and judgements of stakeholders and experts are used in a systematic and repeatable manner. Though there are several methodological textbooks which discuss a plethora of social science techniques, it is hard to judge the suitability of any given technique for a given decision problem.3. In decision-making, the three critical aspects are “what” decision is to be made, “who” makes the decisions and “how” the decisions are made. The methods covered in this paper focus on “how” decisions can be made. We compare six techniques: Focus Group Discussion (FGD), Interviews, Q methodology, Multi-criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA), Nominal Group Technique and the Delphi technique specifically in the context of biodiversity conservation. All of these techniques (with the exception of MCDA) help in understanding human values and the underlying perspectives which shape decisions.4. Based on structured reviews of 423 papers covering all six methods, we compare the conceptual and logistical characteristics of the methods, and map their suitability for the different stages of the decision- making process. While interviews and FGD are well-known, techniques such the Nominal Group technique and Q methodology are relatively under- used. In situations where conflict is high, we recommend using the Q methodology and Delphi technique to elicit judgements. Where conflict is low, and a consensus is needed urgently, the Nominal Group technique may be more suitable.5. We present a nuanced synthesis of methods aimed at users. The comparison of the different techniques might be useful for project managers, academics or practitioners in the planning phases of their projects and help in making better informed methodological choices.
|
|
| 2. |
- Sahlin, Ullrika, et al.
(author)
-
A benefit analysis of screening for invasive species - base-rate uncertainty and the value of information
- 2011
-
In: Methods in Ecology and Evolution. - 2041-210X. ; 2:5, s. 500-508
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- 1.. Implementation of the full spectra of screening tools to prevent the introduction of invasive species results in a need to evaluate the cost-efficiency of gathering the information needed to screen for these species. 2. We show how the Bayesian value of information approach can be used to derive the benefit of a screening model based on species traits, which in combination with the base rate of invasiveness, i.e. the proportion of invasive species among those introduced and established, predicts species-specific invasiveness. 3. A pre-posterior Bayesian analysis demonstrated that the benefit of the screening model of invasiveness depends on both the accuracy in predictions and the uncertainty in the base rate of invasiveness. However, even though increasing model accuracy always generates higher model benefit, acknowledging or neglecting the uncertainty in the base rate of invasiveness does not. This means that uncertainty in the base rate is important to consider in the cost-benefit analysis of the screening model. 4. As an example, we derived the benefit of basing decisions on a screening model trained for a data set on species traits of invasive and non-invasive marine macroalgae introduced into Europe. The benefit ranged from 0.6% to 19% of the loss of introducing an invasive species, where the actual value can be estimated if we know the monetary values of impacts from introducing invasive and not introducing non-invasive species. 5. Cost-benefit analyses of screening models for invasive species is one means to reach efficient management of the risks of non-indigenous species. Value of information is a useful tool for benefit analysis of predictive models with respect to decision-making, which goes beyond the investigations of model accuracy. Here, we use value of information analysis to evaluate which sources of uncertainty that is most worth while to reduce and how to set the cost of gathering further species-specific information which will improve the accuracy of a screening.
|
|
| 3. |
- Adem Esmail, Blal, 1982-, et al.
(author)
-
Multi-criteria decision analysis for nature conservation : A review of 20 years of applications
- 2018
-
In: Methods in Ecology and Evolution. - 2041-210X. ; 9, s. 42-53
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- 1. Multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) is a method to support decision-making, by exploring the balance between the pros and cons of different alternatives to ac- complish a specific goal. It assists in framing decision problems, illustrating the per- formance of alternatives across criteria, exploring trade-offs, formulating a decision and testing its robustness. This paper provides a structured review of empirical applications of MCDA to nature conservation published in the scientific literature over the last 20 years. The paper aims at taking stock of past experiences, and comparing them with best practices and common pitfalls identified in the literature, to provide recommendations for better MCDA application to conservation.2. The review follows the structure of a generalized MCDA process consisting of three key stages: (1) decision context and problem structuring, (2) analysis and (3) decision.3. The search identified 86 papers that describe MCDA applications to a range of top- ics, including conservation prioritization and planning; protected areas management and zoning; forest management and restoration; and mapping of biodiversity, naturalness and wilder. The results show that, concerning problem structuring, a small percentage of the reviewed MCDA engaged stakeholders other than the authors in identifying alternatives and formulating criteria (15% and 35% respectively). Concerning the analysis, criteria assessment was adequately justified by the authors (47%), at times also by involving other stakeholders (22%). Weighting was per- formed in almost all applications, whereas criteria aggregation was mostly based on the weighted linear combination (63%). Sensitivity analysis was largely overlooked (57%). Concerning decision, 45% of the articles provided only an overall ranking or suitability of alternatives, while 22% included additional rankings according to spe- cific criterion, and 8% further analyses and clustering of stakeholders’ preferences.4. The paper concludes by suggesting key elements of successful MCDA applications, including clear construction of the decision context; collaborative identification of alternatives and criteria that reflect the values at stake; adequate justification and communication of the methods for criteria assessment and weighting; reasoned choice of the criteria aggregation method, and comprehensive sensitivity analysis.
|
|
| 4. |
- Iwaszkiewicz-Eggebrecht, Elzbieta, et al.
(author)
-
Optimizing insect metabarcoding using replicated mock communities
- 2023
-
In: Methods in Ecology and Evolution. - : Wiley. - 2041-210X. ; 14:4, s. 1130-1146
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Metabarcoding (high-throughput sequencing of marker gene amplicons) has emerged as a promising and cost-effective method for characterizing insect community samples. Yet, the methodology varies greatly among studies and its performance has not been systematically evaluated to date. In particular, it is unclear how accurately metabarcoding can resolve species communities in terms of presence-absence, abundance and biomass. Here we use mock community experiments and a simple probabilistic model to evaluate the effect of different DNA extraction protocols on metabarcoding performance. Specifically, we ask four questions: (Q1) How consistent are the recovered community profiles across replicate mock communities?; (Q2) How does the choice of lysis buffer affect the recovery of the original community?; (Q3) How are community estimates affected by differing lysis times and homogenization? and (Q4) Is it possible to obtain adequate species abundance estimates through the use of biological spike-ins? We show that estimates are quite variable across community replicates. In general, a mild lysis protocol is better at reconstructing species lists and approximate counts, while homogenization is better at retrieving biomass composition. Small insects are more likely to be detected in lysates, while some tough species require homogenization to be detected. Results are less consistent across biological replicates for lysates than for homogenates. Some species are associated with strong PCR amplification bias, which complicates the reconstruction of species counts. Yet, with adequate spike-in data, species abundance can be determined with roughly 40% standard error for homogenates, and with roughly 50% standard error for lysates, under ideal conditions. In the latter case, however, this often requires species-specific reference data, while spike-in data generalize better across species for homogenates. We conclude that a non-destructive, mild lysis approach shows the highest promise for the presence/absence description of the community, while also allowing future morphological or molecular work on the material. However, homogenization protocols perform better for characterizing community composition, in particular in terms of biomass.
|
|
