10. What is Structured Decision Making?
Utilizes decision analysis & toolkit
Useful for collaborative problem solving
Iterative framework, values focused
Identify & resolve impediments to decision
11. Hammond et al. 2002. Smart choices:
a practical guide to making better
life decisions. [BOOK]
Problem
Objectives
Alternatives
Consequences
Trade-offs
`
Decide & take
action
Runge et al. 2011. An overview of
structured decision making, revised
edition. [ONLINE VIDEOS]
Conroy & Peterson 2013. Decision
Making in Natural Resource
Management: A Structured, Adaptive
Approach. [BOOK]
13. Rapid Prototyping
Real
World
Abstraction
of the problem
(Decision framework)
Problem framing
Information Model
Analysis
Reality Check
Revise & Repeat
Figure by J.F. Cochrane & A.M. Starfield
14. When Structured Decision Making?
Objectives may be initially unclear
Underlying science may be quite uncertain
Wide range of conservation problems
Forest stand rotation scheduling
Recovery plan for endangered species
Conservation strategy for an ecoregion
Continental harvest plans for waterfowl
15. Outline
Existing challenges & approaches
Introduce another way forward
Illustrative example
Problem definition in focus
16. Tidal marsh conservation in the face of climate change: San
Francisco Bay case study
Mattsson, B., J. Takekawa, K. Thorne , D. Crouse J. Cummings, G. Block, V.
Bloom, M. Gerhart, S. Goldbeck, J. O’Halloran, B. Huning, N. Peterson, C.
Sloop, M. Stewart, K. Taylor, and L. Valoppi
17. Decision Question
To conserve SFB tidal marshes in light of
uncertainty about future climate change, what
are the smartest courses of action?
18. Who are the Decision-makers?
Policy – USFWS, USACE, Bay Conservation and Development
Commission, SFB Regional Water Quality Control Board, EPA
Planning – SFB Joint Venture, State Coastal Conservancy
Land Management – FWS Refuges, DFG Wildlife Areas, NPS, East Bay
Regional Parks
No single, individual decision-maker for SFB tidal marsh
restoration, management, and protection.
SFB Joint Venture -- platform for coordination
19. What Is the Primary Objective?
Perpetuate tidal marsh ecosystem functions,
services, and human benefits by maximizing
resilience of the system.
Ecosystem functions – interactions of biota with the environment (nesting
habitat, food webs)
Ecosystem services – indirect benefits to society from healthy ecosystems
(water quality, carbon sequestration)
Human benefits – direct benefits to interest groups (fishing, recreation)
Resilience – capacity of ecosystem to respond to disturbance
20. A. Marsh migration (3a,3b,11,12,19) – upslope movement
B. Climate restoration (4,6,7,8,13,21) – engineer and manage
marshes considering SLR and extreme events
C. Wildlife enhancement (16,17,18) – add habitat features, captive
rearing, translocation
D. Outreach (20) – education, involvement
Group Alternatives (n=22) into Categories
21. Alternative Allocations & SLR (2010-2050)
0
20
40
60
80
100
2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
%Allocation
Year
Status Quo
Marsh Migration Climate Restoration
Wildlife Static Restoration (Action 22)
Sea-Level
28. Next Steps
Engage broader set of stakeholders & scientists
Revisit model structure & inputs
Consider additional focal species & tidal zones
Address finer, actionable spatial resolution
Expand response horizon to year 2100
Dynamic optimization or heuristics to find smartest
spatiotemporal actions (e.g. Wilson et al 2011)
Crucial uncertainties reducible via adaptive management
30. Outline
Existing challenges & approaches
Introduce another way forward
Illustrative example
Problem definition in focus
31. Defining Problems is Not Natural
When faced with a challenging situation,
tendency is: “what should I do?”
32. Problem Definition is Essential
…castles made of sand slip into the sea,
eventually – J. Hendrix
33. Decision: Defined
1. An outcome of a cognitive process leading to selection
of a course of action* among several alternatives
2. An irrevocable expenditure* of resources
*Note:
No action is a decision
Priority list is NOT
34. Turning a Problem into a Decision
Problem: “Bird species native to Hawaiian islands
cannot disperse and risk extinction from sea level
rise, invasive species, and hurricanes”
Decision Statement: “How should we implement a
management program to maximize the likelihood
that native bird species persist on Hawaiian
Islands?”
35. Identifying a Suitable Decision
Has the decision already been made?
Decision support needed?
Who are the decision makers and
stakeholders?
Authority & resources to implement?
Open to SDM?
36. What is the Decision?
Type: Allocation of resources? Choosing among
options? Series of linked choices?
Frequency, timing, spatial scope?
Constraints? Legal, regulatory, other? Dissolvable?
Key sources of uncertainty?
37. Collaborative Decision Making: Roles
Coordinators: champion SDM process/implementation
Coaches: neutral, SDM experts
Stakeholders: can influence or are influenced by decision
Technical advisors: modelers, analysts, biologists, etc.
(Facilitators: neutral, maintain team cohesiveness)
39. Building Capacity for Decision Analysis
National Conservation Training Center (USA)
http://nctc.fws.gov/courses/SDM/home.html
Adaptive Management Conference Series (USA)
NERP Environmental Decisions hub (Australia)
www.nerpdecisions.edu.au/
Others?
42. Qualitative vs. Quantitative Analysis
Qualitative only Plus Quantitative
Cost/time investment Lower Higher
Transparency
Risk of litigation
Lower Higher
Higher Lower
Capacity to learn Lower Higher
$ Translocation &
habitat
LADU persist
Kaho’olawe
approval
Sea-level rise Catastrophes
$ Translocation &
habitat
LADU persist
Kaho’olawe
approval
Sea-level rise Catastrophes
Max potential…
43. SFB Potential
Inundation
Current conditions: 310 km2
vulnerable to 100-yr floods,
most behind levees
50-cm SLR: 372 km2 or 20%
increase by 2053 or 40 yrs
150-cm SLR: 495 km2 or 60%
increase by 2105 or 100 yrs
with much uncertainty about
the rate
(Knowles 2010, SFEWS)
44. Giselle Block, FWS R8 I&M
Valary Bloom, FWS R8 Recovery Branch
Debby Crouse, Apprentice Coach, FWS Endangered Spp.
Jonathan Cummings, Apprentice Coach, Univ. Vermont
Matt Gerhart, State Coastal Conservancy
Steve Goldbeck, Bay Conservation & Development Commission
Jaime O’Halloran, U. S. Army Corp of Engineers
Beth Huning, SFB Joint Venture
Brady Mattsson, Coach, USGS Western Ecological Research Center
Nadine Peterson, State Coastal Conservancy
Christina Sloop, SFB Joint Venture
Mendel Stewart, FWS – SFB National Wildlife Refuges
John Takekawa, Coordinator, USGS Western Ecological Research Center
Karen Taylor, Co-coordinator, CA Dept. of Fish & Game
Karen Thorne, Coordinator, USGS Western Ecological Research Center
Laura Valoppi, South Bay Salt Ponds Restoration Project
Workshop Participants
47. 1. Do nothing – walk away
2. Status quo -- keep existing strategy with its nominal climate adaptation
3. Acquire upslope habitat for marsh migration from undeveloped lands
4. Engineering solutions for future restorations
5. Retrofit ongoing or post-construction restoration sites
6. Design marshes with flexibility to facilitate future SLR adaptation
7. Manage with conservation reserves or easements versus fee title
8. Remove development to facilitate marsh expansion
9. Captive breeding program for T&E
10. Create artificial habitat elements and structures for T&E
11. Develop community outreach, education, and involvement
Outside-the-Box Actions
• Build a water control structure at the Golden Gate to stop the tide
• Mendel’s bucket brigade – each person scoops 2.5 million buckets and dumps
them inland to lower sea level – problem solved!
Alternative Actions (n=22)
Notes de l'éditeur
Some of you may be wondering why we really need a more structured approach to decision making for natural resources.Well, the reason for this is that it is often difficult to make a decision that will lead to some management goal, especially when there’s a need to integrate across institutions, agencies, and scales – both spatial and temporal.This is not all that surprising when recognizing the many psychological traps such as overly discounting future returns and moving to action without knowing the aims of our actions. So, what we need to improve our decision making is a transparent, structured approach. In other words, to take the stuff that’s in our head and put it on paper so that we can logically work through the steps toward our decisions. This transparency is especially important when decisions are in the public eye, which has become very evident in the wake of the recent GC oil spill.
Some of you are probably familiar with SDM. This is a general approach that is based on the field of decision analysis, which has its roots in…. I want to acknowledge some of my mentors… who have developed a series of courses and workshops at NCTC, where I’ve had the opportunity to help facilitate SDM workshops and to teach SDM and AM to natural resource professionals. Many of you have probably heard of adaptive management, which is a special case of SDM where we have multiple linked decisions along with monitoring to reduce structural uncertainty. Today, I’ll introduce SDM in its most general sense, and it is meant to be inclusive of other formal, logical approaches that aim toward achieving management objectives._______________The term decision analysis was coined in 1964 by Ronald A. Howard[1], who since then, as a professor at Stanford University, has been instrumental in developing much of the practice and professional application of DA.
Applies to wide range of problemsCan integrate disciplines & scalesIncreases stakeholder involvement & buy-inSupports learning & improvement"a formalization of common sense for decision problems which are too complex for informal use of common sense“ -- Keeney 1982__________Before describing the framework of SDM, I wanted to give a brief overview of the range of problems we may encounter in NRM and that the approach to a problem depends on whether the objectives and underlying science can be bounded and agreed upon. Highly contentious management problems, such as those that involve control of mammalian predators, may have obscured objectives and disputes about the underlying science that would require conflict resolution or joint fact finding. Less contentious problems, however, would be more suited for SDM. Also, note that adaptive management is actually a special case of SDM, where we have multiple, linked decisions along with monitoring to reduce structural uncertainty. For my talk today, I’ll introduce SDM in its broadest sense and provide applications from my own experience.
*** Make fun of the acronym, but say that this is a useful heuristic –
Adaptive management is where we really begin to incorporate the scientific method in NRM, and this is a focus of my research program that explicitly incorporates learning-based quantitative models for improving management decisions.
***2-day workshop, importance of providing structure to be filled in later through iterative loops through PrOACT. Problem framing: important to ID an actual decision where manager needs assistanceThis concept of developing a coarse framework before filling in the detailed models is often referred to as rapid prototyping. So, we often need multiple iterations through the PrOACT loop until we have a structure that provides a confident management recommendation.
…is now being applied in a range of natural resource problems, including reserve design, sustainable harvest planning, resource allocation. A great strength of this approach is that it integrates ecological and human dimensions of natural resource management problems.
There is a wide range of tools available to examine tradeoffs in a decision problem. I have experience applying a number of these approaches, but for this problem I chose Simple Multiattribute Rating Technique, which is commonly applied for solving deterministic problems with multiple objectives.Credit: MCR
Adaptive management is where we really begin to incorporate the scientific method in NRM, and this is a focus of my research program that explicitly incorporates learning-based quantitative models for improving management decisions.
*** Emphasize that I have participated in all of these and am involved with pushing this forward*** Mention that some of the background material for talk is drawn from the SDM course
*** replace scores with weights before averaging across stakeholdersThe first step in the SMART approach is to assign weights to the fundamental objectives. As only a subset of the stakeholders were available during the workshop, we used role playing to assign some of the weights. Let’s look at a couple examples. Private landowners have a slight preference for recovery over cost effectiveness followed by social acceptance, whereas DOD has a relatively strong weight placed on recovery relative to cost & social acceptance – this reflects their legal mandate to protect endangered species through habitat mgmt.
Transparency may be actually higher for qualitative vs. quantitative decision-making. Some quantitative approaches are black-boxy and non-transparent. Maybe a 5th line regarding uncertainty – linked to learning.If there is lots of uncertainty, easier to represent the system qualitatively.Two extreme approaches: purely quantitative would be doing the entire decision analysis in your head – whether explicitly going through the decision analysis or not. Purely quantitative would be writing out every step of the decision analysis so that anyone could retrace your steps. An intermediate option would be writing out a subset of the steps, but doing the rest in your head – a common example would be that you write out the management problem, objectives, and alternatives, then do the rest in your head without any explicit models or means to choose an alternative management strategy.
