Implicit decision framing as an unrecognized source of confusion in endangered species classification

© 2018 The Authors. Conservation Biology published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of Society for Conservation Biology.

Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology. - 1999. - 32(2018), 6 vom: 01. Dez., Seite 1246-1254
1. Verfasser: Cummings, Jonathan W (VerfasserIn)
Weitere Verfasser: Converse, Sarah J, Smith, David R, Morey, Steve, Runge, Michael C
Format: Online-Aufsatz
Sprache:English
Veröffentlicht: 2018
Zugriff auf das übergeordnete Werk:Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology
Schlagworte:Journal Article Research Support, U.S. Gov't, Non-P.H.S. Endangered Species Act acta de Especies en Peligro análisis multicriterio de decisiones decision theory enmarcación de problemas especies amenazadas game theory listas rojas mehr... multiple-criteria decision analysis problem framing red lists risk assessment teoría de decisiones teoría de juegos threatened species valoración de riesgos 《濒危物种法案 (Endangered Species Act) 》, 受胁迫物种, 决策论, 风险评估, 多准则决策分析, 博弈论, 红色名录, 问题构建
LEADER 01000naa a22002652 4500
001 NLM286304953
003 DE-627
005 20231225051410.0
007 cr uuu---uuuuu
008 231225s2018 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c
024 7 |a 10.1111/cobi.13185  |2 doi 
028 5 2 |a pubmed24n0954.xml 
035 |a (DE-627)NLM286304953 
035 |a (NLM)29987850 
040 |a DE-627  |b ger  |c DE-627  |e rakwb 
041 |a eng 
100 1 |a Cummings, Jonathan W  |e verfasserin  |4 aut 
245 1 0 |a Implicit decision framing as an unrecognized source of confusion in endangered species classification 
264 1 |c 2018 
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 17.10.2019 
500 |a Date Revised 17.10.2019 
500 |a published: Print-Electronic 
500 |a Citation Status MEDLINE 
520 |a © 2018 The Authors. Conservation Biology published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of Society for Conservation Biology. 
520 |a Legal classification of species requires scientific and values-based components, and how those components interact depends on how people frame the decision. Is classification a negotiation of trade-offs, a decision on how to allocate conservation efforts, or simply a comparison of the biological status of a species to a legal standard? The answers to problem-framing questions such as these influence decision making in species classifications. In our experience, however, decision makers, staff biologists, and stakeholders often have differing perspectives of the decision problem and assume different framings. In addition to differences between individuals, in some cases it appears individuals themselves are unclear about the decision process, which contributes to regulatory paralysis, litigation, and a loss of trust by agency staff and the public. We present 5 framings: putting species in the right bin, doing right by the species over time, saving the most species on a limited budget, weighing extinction risk against other objectives, and strategic classification to advance conservation. These framings are inspired by elements observed in current classification practices. Putting species in the right bin entails comparing a scientific status assessment with policy thresholds and accounting for potential misclassification costs. Doing right by the species adds a time dimension to the classification decision, and saving the most species on a limited budget classifies a suite of species simultaneously. Weighing extinction risk against other objectives would weigh ecological or socioeconomic concerns in classification decisions, and strategic classification to advance conservation would make negotiation a component of classification. We view these framings as a means to generate thought, discussion, and movement toward selection and application of explicit classification framings. Being explicit about the decision framing could lead decision makers toward more efficient and defensible decisions, reduce internal confusion and external conflict, and support better collaboration between scientists and policy makers 
650 4 |a Journal Article 
650 4 |a Research Support, U.S. Gov't, Non-P.H.S. 
650 4 |a Endangered Species Act 
650 4 |a acta de Especies en Peligro 
650 4 |a análisis multicriterio de decisiones 
650 4 |a decision theory 
650 4 |a enmarcación de problemas 
650 4 |a especies amenazadas 
650 4 |a game theory 
650 4 |a listas rojas 
650 4 |a multiple-criteria decision analysis 
650 4 |a problem framing 
650 4 |a red lists 
650 4 |a risk assessment 
650 4 |a teoría de decisiones 
650 4 |a teoría de juegos 
650 4 |a threatened species 
650 4 |a valoración de riesgos 
650 4 |a 《濒危物种法案 (Endangered Species Act) 》, 受胁迫物种, 决策论, 风险评估, 多准则决策分析, 博弈论, 红色名录, 问题构建 
700 1 |a Converse, Sarah J  |e verfasserin  |4 aut 
700 1 |a Smith, David R  |e verfasserin  |4 aut 
700 1 |a Morey, Steve  |e verfasserin  |4 aut 
700 1 |a Runge, Michael C  |e verfasserin  |4 aut 
773 0 8 |i Enthalten in  |t Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology  |d 1999  |g 32(2018), 6 vom: 01. Dez., Seite 1246-1254  |w (DE-627)NLM098176803  |x 1523-1739  |7 nnns 
773 1 8 |g volume:32  |g year:2018  |g number:6  |g day:01  |g month:12  |g pages:1246-1254 
856 4 0 |u http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13185  |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 32  |j 2018  |e 6  |b 01  |c 12  |h 1246-1254