Using structured decision making to help implement a precautionary approach to endangered species management

Risk Analysis

Volumn 29, Issue 4, 2009, Pages 518-532

  Gregory, Robin ^a,c   Long, Graham ^b  

^a DECISION RESEARCH   (United States)

^b Graham Long Compass Resource Management   (Canada)

^c NONE   (United States)

Author keywords

Decision making; Endangered species; Precautionary; Risk management

Indexed keywords

ALTERNATIVE MANAGEMENTS; ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES; ENDANGERED SPECIES; ENDANGERED SPECIES MANAGEMENTS; MANAGEMENT DECISIONS; MANAGEMENT PROBLEMS; MULTI STAKEHOLDERS; PERFORMANCE MEASURES; PRECAUTIONARY; PRECAUTIONARY APPROACHES; PRECAUTIONARY RISK MANAGEMENTS; QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS; RESOURCE MANAGEMENTS; RISK MANAGERS; WEST COASTS;

CONSERVATION; MANAGERS; OCCUPATIONAL RISKS; RESOURCE ALLOCATION; RISK ANALYSIS; RISK MANAGEMENT;

DECISION MAKING;

DECISION MAKING; ENDANGERED SPECIES; EXTINCTION; PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE; RISK ASSESSMENT; SALMONID; SPECIES CONSERVATION; STAKEHOLDER;

DECISION MAKING; ENDANGERED SPECIES; EVALUATION; HUMAN; PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT SYSTEM; PRECAUTIONARY RISK MANAGEMENT; PROTECTION; QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS; RESOURCE MANAGEMENT; REVIEW; RISK MANAGEMENT; SALMON; SPECIES CONSERVATION; STRUCTURED DECISION MAKING; UNCERTAINTY;

ANIMALS; CONSERVATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES; DECISION MAKING; RISK MANAGEMENT; SALMON;

BRITISH COLUMBIA; CANADA; CULTUS LAKE; NORTH AMERICA;

CULTUS;

EID: 62749084513     PISSN: 02724332     EISSN: 15396924     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2008.01182.x     Document Type: Review

References (29)

1. Scott JM, Goble DD, Davis FW. The Endangered Species Act at Thirty: Vol. 2: Conserving Biodiversity in Human-Dominated Landscapes. Washington, DC : Island Press, 2006.
2. Asselt M, Vos ET. The precautionary principle and the uncertainty paradox. Journal of Risk Research, 2006 9 : 313 336.
3. Cross FB. Paradoxical perils of the precautionary principle. Washington and Lee Law Review, 1996 53 : 851 925.
4. National Research Council (NRC). Committee on Risk Characterization. Understanding Risk: Informing Decisions in a Democratic Society. Washington, DC : National Academy Press, 1996.
5. Gregory R, Failing L, Ohlson D, McDaniels T. Some pitfalls of an overemphasis on science in environmental risk management decisions. Journal of Risk Research, 2006 9 : 717 735.
6. Burgman M. Risks and Decisions for Conservation and Environmental Management. UK : Cambridge University Press, 2005.
7. Kahneman D, Tversky A (eds Choices, Values, and Frames. UK : Cambridge University Press, 2000.
8. Berkes F. Sacred Ecology: Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Resource Management. Philadelphia : Taylor & Francis, 1999.
9. Morgan G, Henrion M. Uncertainty: A Guide to Dealing with Uncertainty in Quantitative Risk and Policy Analysis. New York : Cambridge University Press, 1990.
10. Vose D. Risk Analysis: A Quantitative Guide to Monte Carlo Simulation Modelling. New York : John Wiley and Sons, 1996.
11. Burgman M. Expert frailties in conservation risk assessment and listing decisions. In Hutchings P, Lunney D, Dickman C (eds Threatened Species Legislation: Is it Just an Act pp. 20 29). Mosman, Australia : Royal Zoological Society of New South Wales, 2004.
12. Campbell LM. Science and sustainable use: Views of marine turtle conservation experts. Ecological Applications, 2002 12 : 1229 1246.
13. Keeney R, Raiffa H. Decisions with Multiple Objectives. New York : Cambridge University Press, 1993/2006.
14. Hammond J, Keeney R, Raiffa H. Smart Choices: A Practical Guide to Making Better Decisions. Boston : Harvard Business School Press, 1999.
15. Maguire L. What can decision analysis do for invasive species management Risk Analysis, 2004 24 859 868.
16. Landis W. Ecological risk assessment conceptual model formulation for nonindigenous species. Risk Analysis, 2004 24 847 858 (see also 21).
17. Gregory R, Keeney R. Creating policy alternatives using stakeholder values. Management Science, 1994 40 : 1035 1048.
18. Suter G. Ecological Risk Assessment. Boca Raton, FL : Lewis, 1993.
19. Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO), Pacific Region. Cultus Lake Sockeye Salmon Stock Status Report, 2003. Available at : http://www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/sci/psarc/SSRs/Salmon/2003-024.pdf, Accessed on August 18, 2008.
20. Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO). Backgrounder: Wrap-Up of 2005 Salmon Fishing Season, 2005. Available at : http://www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/ ops/fm/reports/fisheries05/salmonwrap-e.htm, Accessed on August 18, 2008.
21. Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO). Precautionary Approach to Fisheries Part 1: Guidelines on the Precautionary Approach to Capture Fisheries and Species Introductions (FAO Fisheries Technical Paper 350/1), 1995. Available at : http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/003/V8045E/V8045E00.htm, Accessed on August 18, 2008.
22. Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO). Canada's Policy for Conservation of Wild Pacific Salmon. Vancouver, BC : Fisheries and Oceans Canada, 2005.
23. Assembly of First Nations (AFN). Resolution 12: Cultus Lake Sockeye, 2003. Available at : http://www.afn.ca/article.asp?id=1258, Accessed on August 18, 2008.
24. Gross MR, Montagnes P, Parkes M, Riis P, Roberts B, Turner MA. Extinction by Miscalculation: The Threat to Sakinaw and Cultus Lake Sockeye. Department of Economics, University of Toronto, Working Paper Series, 2004.
25. Keeney R, Gregory R. Selecting attributes to measure the achievement of objectives. Operations Research, 2005 53 : 1 11.
26. Failing L, Gregory R, Harstone M. Integrating science and local knowledge in environmental risk management: A decision-focused approach. Ecological Economics, 2007 64 : 47 60.
27. Landis WG, Wiegers JA. Design considerations and a suggested approach for regional and comparative ecological risk assessment. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment, 1997 3 : 287 298.
28. Pestes L, Peterman R, Bradford M, Wood C. Bayesian decision analysis for evaluating management options to promote recovery of a depleted salmon population. Conservation Biology, 2008 22 : 351 361.
29. Walters M. Do no harm. Conservation in Practice, 2006 7 : 28 34.