Environmental cost of using poor decision metrics to prioritize environmental projects

© 2016 Society for Conservation Biology.

Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology. - 1999. - 30(2016), 2 vom: 01. Apr., Seite 382-91
1. Verfasser: Pannell, David J (VerfasserIn)
Weitere Verfasser: Gibson, Fiona L
Format: Online-Aufsatz
Sprache:English
Veröffentlicht: 2016
Zugriff auf das übergeordnete Werk:Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology
Schlagworte:Journal Article Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't análisis de costo-beneficio benefit:cost analysis costos costs decision theory economics economía incertidumbre mehr... teoría de decisión uncertainty
LEADER 01000naa a22002652 4500
001 NLM252707842
003 DE-627
005 20231224164657.0
007 cr uuu---uuuuu
008 231224s2016 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c
024 7 |a 10.1111/cobi.12628  |2 doi 
028 5 2 |a pubmed24n0842.xml 
035 |a (DE-627)NLM252707842 
035 |a (NLM)26365219 
040 |a DE-627  |b ger  |c DE-627  |e rakwb 
041 |a eng 
100 1 |a Pannell, David J  |e verfasserin  |4 aut 
245 1 0 |a Environmental cost of using poor decision metrics to prioritize environmental projects 
264 1 |c 2016 
336 |a Text  |b txt  |2 rdacontent 
337 |a ƒaComputermedien  |b c  |2 rdamedia 
338 |a ƒa Online-Ressource  |b cr  |2 rdacarrier 
500 |a Date Completed 13.12.2016 
500 |a Date Revised 30.12.2016 
500 |a published: Print-Electronic 
500 |a Citation Status MEDLINE 
520 |a © 2016 Society for Conservation Biology. 
520 |a Conservation decision makers commonly use project-scoring metrics that are inconsistent with theory on optimal ranking of projects. As a result, there may often be a loss of environmental benefits. We estimated the magnitudes of these losses for various metrics that deviate from theory in ways that are common in practice. These metrics included cases where relevant variables were omitted from the benefits metric, project costs were omitted, and benefits were calculated using a faulty functional form. We estimated distributions of parameters from 129 environmental projects from Australia, New Zealand, and Italy for which detailed analyses had been completed previously. The cost of using poor prioritization metrics (in terms of lost environmental values) was often high--up to 80% in the scenarios we examined. The cost in percentage terms was greater when the budget was smaller. The most costly errors were omitting information about environmental values (up to 31% loss of environmental values), omitting project costs (up to 35% loss), omitting the effectiveness of management actions (up to 9% loss), and using a weighted-additive decision metric for variables that should be multiplied (up to 23% loss). The latter 3 are errors that occur commonly in real-world decision metrics, in combination often reducing potential benefits from conservation investments by 30-50%. Uncertainty about parameter values also reduced the benefits from investments in conservation projects but often not by as much as faulty prioritization metrics 
650 4 |a Journal Article 
650 4 |a Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't 
650 4 |a análisis de costo-beneficio 
650 4 |a benefit:cost analysis 
650 4 |a costos 
650 4 |a costs 
650 4 |a decision theory 
650 4 |a economics 
650 4 |a economía 
650 4 |a incertidumbre 
650 4 |a teoría de decisión 
650 4 |a uncertainty 
700 1 |a Gibson, Fiona L  |e verfasserin  |4 aut 
773 0 8 |i Enthalten in  |t Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology  |d 1999  |g 30(2016), 2 vom: 01. Apr., Seite 382-91  |w (DE-627)NLM098176803  |x 1523-1739  |7 nnns 
773 1 8 |g volume:30  |g year:2016  |g number:2  |g day:01  |g month:04  |g pages:382-91 
856 4 0 |u http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12628  |3 Volltext 
912 |a GBV_USEFLAG_A 
912 |a SYSFLAG_A 
912 |a GBV_NLM 
912 |a GBV_ILN_350 
951 |a AR 
952 |d 30  |j 2016  |e 2  |b 01  |c 04  |h 382-91