Speical issue on Risks, Decisions, and Biological Conservation

In the Journal of Diversity and Distributions Vol 19 (5-6). 

Interesting conclusion drawn by the Special issue editors in their introduction piece:

"Policy makers and conservation managers aspire to set evidence-based priorities, and technical specialists aim to have their methods used in decision-making. Scientists will succeed if, as the articles in this issue exemplify, they develop a sound understanding of the context of the decisions in which their tools are to be used and shape them accordingly."

National risk management and resilience

Erwann Michel-Kerjan proposed to develop nation-wide risk management strategies to make nations truly resilient to extreme events such as superstorm Sandy (Nature).  He reckons governments should be able to answer five questions: What risks do we face and where? What assets and populations are exposed and to what degree? How vulnerable are they? What financial burden do these risks place on individuals, businesses and the government budget? How best can we invest to reduce risks and strengthen economic and social resilience?

Special issue: Pest risk analysis, the PRQTIQUE way

In EPPO Bulletin, Vol 42 (1), 2012. 

Special issue: Risk Perception and Behaviors: Anticipating and Responding to Crises

Risk analysis 32 (4), 2012

Are you risk literate?

A 3 minute test  (The Berlin Numeracy Test) developed to quickly measure and provide feedback about your risk literacy.  It is quite easy for people with science background like myself, I have to say.  But this might not be the case for the general public (full paper pdf). With 21 studies (n=5336), the researchers found that the test to be the strongest predictor of comprehension of everyday risk.  I am thinking about using it in my own research...

Lack of assessment of the assessment

From Gibbs, 2011. The missing link is the post hoc assessments about the performance of ecological risk assessments.

ES review for impact assessment

Just released by WRI

Uncertainty in the context of the precautionary principle

A paper by T. Aven in the latest Risk analysis, proposing a new classification system of uncertainties (Z is the output and X are the underlying factors influencing Z). The paper is followed by three commentaries.

In the paper the author argued that only a surprising outcome necessitates the application of precautionary principle, and the potential for surprises means we have trouble in establishing an accurate predication model (a cause-effect relationship). Dr Aven does not like the "risk, uncertainty and ignorance" system because the narrow definition of the term risk would be in conflict with common practice of risk assessment.

Special issue: risk reguation

Vol. 31 (6), 2011. Risk analysis, including three papers on equality

The Spatial Distribution of Threats to Species in Australia

Published in BioScience recently.

Fig. 3. The distribution of the predominant threats to biodiversity across Australia. The “predominant threat” is the threat affecting the greatest number of species in each sub catchment. Where two or more threats affect an equivalent number of species, we consider there to be no predominant threat occurring in these subcatchments, displayed here in shades of gray. Darker colors indicate a larger overall number of threats occurring in the subcatchment. White indicates areas where no threatened species occur.

Should Biological Invasions be Managed as Natural Disasters

A recent BioScience paper.

I think the authors' answer is: yes, and too bad we haven't managed invasions as natural disasters.

The economics of climate change is mainly about decision-making under extreme uncertainty

Said M. Weitzman in reviewing the limitation of deterministic CBA approach featured in Bjørn Lomborg's newly edited book (details).

"A striking feature of the economics of climate change is that rare but catastrophic events may have unfathomable costs. Deep uncertainty about the unknown unknowns of what might go wrong is therefore coupled with essentially unlimited liability. The resulting battle between declining probabilities and increasing damages is difficult to resolve. Alas, this uncertainty can figure prominently in evaluations of climate-change policies. Its absence in a book dealing with economic comparisons of smart solutions is a serious omission."

The effect of movies on risk perception

"...They (movies) were found to produce no average effects on perceived risks in spite of large mood effects and being perceived as credible. We found, however, evidence of idiosyncratic effects of the movies, that is, people reacted immediately after the movies with enhanced or diminished risk beliefs. These reactions had faded after 10 days. (Risk Analysis)."

Risk-taking with OPM as the cause for crisis

by Alan BLinder.

OPM stands for "Other People's Money".

A derivative approach to endangered species conservation

"Under their plan, the government would determine the cost of protecting a species if it becomes endangered. That money would be set aside to fund contracts with payouts pegged to species health. The contracts would be sold to landowners and developers whose actions directly affect the animals, though the contracts could be freely re-sold.

Should animal numbers fall beneath a predetermined threshold, contracts would be voided, and money devoted to anticipated recovery programs. If the species thrives, investors would be rewarded, with profits growing in direct proportion to species health (Wired)."

Not sure they picked a good timing to publicize the approach--many will probably turn around when seeing the word "derivative". On the other hand, I do like their idea of risk-sharing and incentive creating.

P.S. I didn't find the article in the March issue of Frontier though.

Shall we prepare for the worst?

The hottest day in Melbourne history led to Australia's worst natural disaster. Kerry O'Brien, the host of ABC's 7:30 program, asked Victorian Premier John Brumby whether we should prepare for the worst by changing our fire protection law so that something like this will never happen again. The Premier seemed to be reluctant to say yes and his argument was a disaster at such a scale rarely happens. In the same program Andrew Sullivan, who is leading CSIRO's fire ecology program, mentioned that how difficult to predict and control fire hazards.

When scientists don't know enough to guide us, what shall we do? The strictest fire protection law promises the safest future, but at what cost? Are we ready to bear that cost? Who shall make the decision on the level of protection required to protect public good of fire-free environment?

The risk-averse vs. the risk-takers

Another jewel from Risk & Culture (pg 67),

"The risk-averse side starts from the point that unbridled economic growth has hurt the natural environmental and human life. the land has been despoiled, the seas polluted, and people diseased. the advantages of quantitative growth, the arguments goes, have to be sacrificed to improve the quality of life. the other (risk-takers) side says that economic growth is good; it advises citizens not to lower standards of living by very much in order to reduce risk a little. It tries to convert the currency of discourse to a common denominator--lives saved or accidents prevented. Risk-assessment techniques are the expert answer to the question of how much wealth should be scarified for how much health. Experts try to show that many more lives could be saved or accidents prevented by far more efficient alternative uses of the same resources. The risk averse will have no part of this argument. They insist that human life is priceless and cannot be measured by vulgar money. The object that the whole exercise is immoral when life and nature seem to be brought and sold. "

It is interesting that the same set of argument is often used in the discussion of whether it is appropriate to value ecosystem services.

Risk assessment models for establishment of exotic vertebrates in Australia and New Zealand’

a report just released by The Invasive Animals Cooperative Research Centre.

Psychological explanations for inaction facing climate change

A Worldchanging piece summarized these three:

1) Most people will only change when they feel a risk (instead of being informed of the risk);
2) The risk of climate change is not currently/directly sensed;
3) We tend to indulge in our own world: "when proposed solutions to global warming clash with people’s worldviews, those people are more likely to reject evidence of the problem altogether. "

Globalization, financial crisis, and the black swan

A post from Resilience Science by Don Ludwig.

"...it (globalization) creates interlocking fragility, while reducing volatility and giving the appearance of stability. In other words, it creates devastating Black Swans [events that are extremely rare and important]." As a result, "we will have fewer but more severe crises".

Invasive species break-outs are just one of many problems of this "interlocking fragility".