The environmental cost of using poor decision metrics to prioritize environmental projects

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    7 Citations (Scopus)
    143 Downloads (Pure)

    Abstract

    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.
    Original languageEnglish
    Pages (from-to)382-391
    JournalConservation Biology
    Volume30
    Issue number2
    Early online date22 Jan 2016
    DOIs
    Publication statusPublished - Apr 2016

    Fingerprint

    ecological value
    prioritization
    environmental values
    parameter uncertainty
    cost
    ecosystem services
    Italy
    ranking
    decision
    environmental cost
    loss
    project

    Cite this

    @article{6cdbb60f94c54782aefa67b3b7ea6fd5,
    title = "The environmental cost of using poor decision metrics to prioritize environmental projects",
    abstract = "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.",
    author = "David Pannell and Fiona Gibson",
    year = "2016",
    month = "4",
    doi = "10.1111/cobi.12628",
    language = "English",
    volume = "30",
    pages = "382--391",
    journal = "Conservation Biology",
    issn = "0888-8892",
    publisher = "John Wiley & Sons",
    number = "2",

    }

    The environmental cost of using poor decision metrics to prioritize environmental projects. / Pannell, David; Gibson, Fiona.

    In: Conservation Biology, Vol. 30, No. 2, 04.2016, p. 382-391.

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    TY - JOUR

    T1 - The environmental cost of using poor decision metrics to prioritize environmental projects

    AU - Pannell, David

    AU - Gibson, Fiona

    PY - 2016/4

    Y1 - 2016/4

    N2 - 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.

    AB - 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.

    U2 - 10.1111/cobi.12628

    DO - 10.1111/cobi.12628

    M3 - Article

    VL - 30

    SP - 382

    EP - 391

    JO - Conservation Biology

    JF - Conservation Biology

    SN - 0888-8892

    IS - 2

    ER -