North Aleutian Basin Energy-Fisheries Workshop Anchorage Marriott Downtown Hotel

North Aleutian Basin Energy-Fisheries Workshop

Anchorage Marriott Downtown Hotel

Anchorage, Alaska, USA

March 18–19, 2008

Graham Long ([email protected])

Application of Structured Decision Making to the Consideration of Multiple Objectives in Fishery Resource Management

22

22

22

22

2

Overview

Why Structured Decision Making? Example of SDM applied to Fishery

Resource Management: Cultus Lake Sockeye

Lessons Learned Initial Thoughts on Possible Application to

North Aleutian Basin Energy-Fisheries Issues

2

33

33

33

33

3

Why Use Structured Decision Making?

Resource management decisions are almost always multi-attribute problems

That is, they have implications for a wide variety of end-points

Impacts to various environmental endpoints Economic impacts Social and cultural impacts

Any particular management alternative will affect each of these in different ways

3

44

44

44

44

4


Structured Decision Making can be defined as the formal study of trade-offs – the important differences between alternatives, and what they mean to people

Structured Decision Making and Decision Analysis are largely synonymous

The term ‘SDM’ is preferred in the BC government and in the US Fish & Wildlife Service / Dept of Interior

4

55

55

55

55

5

What is Structured Decision Making?

Based on principles of Decision Analysis and Multi-attribute Utility Theory (MAUT)

well developed axiomatic structure for how decisions (individual and group) should be made

“The formal use of common sense for decision problems that are too complex for the informal use of common sense” (R. Keeney, 1982)

Incorporates insights from Behavioral Decision Theory

how humans process information and evaluate options

importance of the decision context

5

66

66

66

66

6


Think you don’t make trade-offs? Common decisions we have to make:

What time to leave home for a meeting? Small house or long commute? Cheap car or safe car? Burger or salad?

All of these decisions involve making trade-offs

We usually evaluate these trade-offs implicitly How might we evaluate them explicitly?

6

77

77

77

77

7

Steps in Good Decision Making

Graham Long, 18 March 2008, Anchorage, Alaska 7

88

88

88

88

8

A Simple SDM Example

You need to purchase a flight ticket next week for a personal trip from Anchorage to Vancouver.


99

99

99

99

9


What’s important to you? I don’t want to spend much money I don’t want hidden fees I don’t want to spend an extra day in Vancouver I want a direct flight I want easy check-ins I want decent leg room I want an aisle seat I want friendly service I am concerned about all the airline crashes

recently I am not comfortable flying with a new airline


1010

1010

1010

1010

10


I don’t want to spend much money

I don’t want hidden fees I don’t want to spend an

extra day in Vancouver

I want a direct flight I want easy check-ins

I want decent leg room I want an aisle seat I want friendly service

I am concerned about all the airline crashes recently

I am not comfortable flying with a new airline


Minimize Cost

Minimize Travel Time

Maximize Comfort

Maximize Safety

$ Total

Hours

Scale (5 = best, 0 = Worst)

# Accidents / 1 million take-offs (5 yr ave)

Issues Objectives Evaluation Criteria

1111

1111

1111

1111

11


Objective Indicator Units

Preferred Direction

AAir

Canada

B Transat

C Vintage

Air

Minimize Cost

$ Lower is better

$2,000 $1,500 $400


Hours Lower is better

8-9 13-15 12-64

Maximize Comfort

(5 = best, 0 = worst)

Higher is better

4 4 ? 0-5

Maximize Safety


Lower is Better

3.8 3.6 ? 0 – 40(?)


1212

1212

1212

1212

12



Preferred Direction

AAir

Canada

B Transat

C Vintage

Air

Minimize Cost

$ Lower is better

$2,000 $1,500 $400



8-9 13-15 12-64

Maximize Comfort


Higher is better

4 4 ? 0-5

Maximize Safety


Lower is Better

3.8 3.6 ? 0 – 40(?)


1313

1313

1313

1313

13



Preferred Direction

AAir

Canada

B Transat

C Vintage

Air

Minimize Cost

$ Lower is better

$2,000 $1,500 $400



8-9 13-15 12-64

Maximize Comfort


Higher is better

4 4 ? 0-5

Maximize Safety


Lower is Better

3.8 3.6 ? 0 – 40(?)


Which flight would YOU choose?

1414

1414

1414

1414

14


This is simply a more formalized version of what we all do implicitly

“formal use of common sense…”

But what happens when decisions are too complex and too important for the informal use of common sense?


1515

1515

1515

1515

15


An explicit approach to understanding trade-offs can help:

When there is not just ONE decision maker, but a panel of people with different viewpoints

When we desire to explore a problem transparently and accountably

When we want to set up a framework that can be updated on an ongoing basis

When we want to separate FACTS about expected outcomes from VALUES about which would be better

15

Undertaken in partnership with:Robin Gregory (Decision Research, Value Scope Research)

Example of SDM applied to Fishery Resource Management: Cultus Lake Sockeye

1717

1717

1717

1717

17



1818

1818

1818

1818

18

Cultus Lake Sockeye

18

1919

1919

1919

1919

19

Cultus Lake Sockeye

Client: Fisheries and Oceans Canada Multiple interests:

High visibility species, high importance to Conservation, commercial fishers, and First Nations

Worked with multi-stakeholder committee (approx. 20 people) over 1 month period in 2006

Key trade-off: Environmental protection – of a listed species Economic impacts – to commercial fishing

19

2020

2020

2020

2020

20

Cultus Lake Sockeye

Data quality variable (and controversial) Multiple management options

commercial fleet exploitation rate captive breeding options freshwater programs

What Cultus Lake management alternative represents the 'best balance' across multiple objectives for 2006 season?

20

2121

2121

2121

2121

21



2222

2222

2222

2222

22

Cultus Lake Sockeye

OBJECTIVES (Slide 1 of 2) Sockeye conservation

Probability of meeting Recovery Plan objectives 1 and 2

Returns in years 2010 and average of 2016-19 Probability of extirpation by 2036 % Enhanced in 2010 and average of 2016-19

Costs Total costs over 12 years, levelized No cost allocation attempted

22

2323

2323

2323

2323

23

Cultus Lake Sockeye

OBJECTIVES (Slide 2 of 2) Catch

Traditional commercial catch Commercial TAC available upstream of Vedder Total First Nations Food, Social and Ceremonial

Catch

Jobs Employment opportunities directly related to

enhancement and freshwater projects

23

2424

2424

2424

2424

24



2525

2525

2525

2525

25

Cultus Lake Sockeye

ALTERNATIVES Alternatives created by assembling ‘blocks’ of

options: Cultus Exploitation Rate % Enhancement options Freshwater projects options

Make use of strategy tables to encourage creative thinking. Two examples:

25

2626

2626

2626

2626

26

Cultus Lake Sockeye

Cultus Exploitation Rate %

Enhancement Freshwater projects options

5 None None

10 Current Captive Brood Current Milfoil Removal

20 Double Current Capacity

Current Pikeminnow

30 Maximum Enhancement

Large Milfoil Removal

40 Large Pikeminnow Removal

Alternative 1: “Status Quo”

26

2727

2727

2727

2727

27

Cultus Lake Sockeye

Cultus Exploitation Rate %

Enhancement Freshwater projects options

5 None None

10 Current Captive Brood Current Milfoil Removal

20 Double Current Capacity

Current Pikeminnow

30 Maximum Enhancement

Large Milfoil Removal

40 Large Pikeminnow Removal

Alternative 2: “Spread the Pain 2”

27

2828

2828

2828

2828

28

Cultus Lake Sockeye

Exploration of alternatives through iterative SDM process: creation, analysis, elimination

Iteration 1 Created 6 alternatives

Iteration 2 Reviewed these 6 and created 3 more

Iteration 3 Reviewed all 9, eliminated 6 because they were

dominated (others the same or better on objectives) Agreed on several key components for all alternatives

28

2929

2929

2929

2929

29

Cultus Lake Sockeye

29

3030

3030

3030

3030

30

Cultus Lake Sockeye

Recognition of need to simplify the decision problem through elimination of relevant objectives and alternatives.

Do this via exploration of Redundancy: where performance measures do not

vary across alternatives Dominance: where one alternative is better than or

equal to all (or, by collective agreement, nearly all) aspects of another

30

3131

3131

3131

3131

31

Cultus Lake Sockeye

Three alternatives remained at the end of this process

31

3232

3232

3232

3232

32

Cultus Lake Sockeye

One alternative favoured by group (8) Though disagreement on some factors remained

Agreement on many common features Detailed agreements and disagreements at end of

process

Remaining issues settled outside the process with other parties who had chosen not to participate

32

3333

3333

3333

3333

33

Cultus Lake Sockeye

Key Messages Although an endangered species problem, SDM

examined trade-offs across ALL significantly affected objectives

Considered a large number of alternatives Best available science used to populate the

consequence matrix People agreed on the matrix, disagreed on some

aspects of what was important Transparent process

33

Lessons Learned

3535

3535

3535

3535

35

Lessons learned

We have applied this approach to a large number of multi-attribute resource management problems, including:

Hydro-electric facility operations Including Columbia and Peace Rivers

Long range energy planning Fisheries planning Fish habitat management planning Various wildlife management issues Initiating a major project concerning the use of

the Athabasca River in Alberta by oil companies


3636

3636

3636

3636

36

Lessons learned

Factors that tend to favour the success of an SDM approach to a multi-objective resource management problem…


3737

3737

3737

3737

37

Success Factors

1) There is Agreement from All Sides to Commit to the Process

Can be many reasons and/or preconditions for this:

Goodwill has previously been established between participants OR

Not so much goodwill but SDM is seen as the ‘least worst’ process option!

High level champions in organizations Clearly understood role of process committee

and its findings


3838

3838

3838

3838

38

Success Factors

2) Participants are willing to trust, or at least to suspend scepticism, of the process

An independent person (Decision Analyst?) leads the process:

Is appointed as the ‘guardian of the process’ Reports to committee, not funders

Leads an analytical team that is ‘firewalled’ from participants

Has capacity to ensure ALL participants can understand materials and participate effectively


3939

3939

3939

3939

39

Success Factors

3) The process is given sufficient time and resources

The process helps build relationships through face to face contact OVER TIME

Understanding complex issues takes time and effort

Short changing the process can be counter-productive

Consider how long any process might take without a structured approach!


Thoughts on North Aleutian Basin Energy-Fisheries Issues

4141

4141

4141

4141

41


If you choose to undertake any kind of analytical approach, some suggestions are:


4242

4242

4242

4242

42


Think hard (and collaboratively) about defining the problem

There are many forms the problem could take All parties must buy into the wording of the

problem


4343

4343

4343

4343

43


If you adopt a ‘precautionary’ approach remember:

Being precautionary with one endpoint usually means being profligate with another!

This may (or may not be) OK The point is:

Make trade-offs clear!


4444

4444

4444

4444

44


Uncertainty plays a central role in all management approaches

Not all uncertainties are significant to the decision at hand

“Don’t count the hairs in the horse’s tail”

SDM has many techniques for identifying, characterizing and communicating key uncertainties to decision makers


Closing Remarks

4646

4646

4646

4646

46

Structured Decision Making

Focuses on what matters Improves the quality & transparency of

judgments Generates creative alternatives Explores trade-offs and uncertainties Ensures a decision-relevant information

base Provides insight: does not “make” the

decision Provides a framework for planning and

consultation


4747

4747

4747

4747

47

Contact

Graham [email protected], Compass Resource Management Ltd.200 - 1260 Hamilton St.Vancouver, B.C. V6B 2S8Canada

Phone: 604-641-2875Fax: 604-641-2878www.compassrm.com


North Aleutian Basin Energy-Fisheries Workshop Anchorage Marriott Downtown Hotel

Documents

Transcript of North Aleutian Basin Energy-Fisheries Workshop Anchorage Marriott Downtown Hotel