Purported flaws in management strategy evaluation: Basic problems or misinterpretations?

Autores
Butterworth, Douglas S.; Bentley, Nokome; De Oliveira, José A. A.; Donovan, Gregory P.; Kell, Laurence T.; Parma, Ana María; Punt, André E.; Sainsbury, Keith J.; Smith, Anthony D. M.; Stokes, T. Kevin
Año de publicación
2010
Idioma
inglés
Tipo de recurso
artículo
Estado
versión publicada
Descripción
Rochet and Rice, while recognizing management strategy evaluation (MSE) as an important step forward in fisheries management, level a number of criticisms at its implementation. Some of their points are sound, such as the need for care in representing uncertainties and for thorough documentation of the process. However, others evidence important misunderstandings. Although the difficulties in estimating tail probabilities and risks, as discussed by Rochet and Rice, are well known, their arguments that Efron's nonparametric bootstrap re-sampling method underestimates the probabilities of low values are flawed. In any case, though, the focus of MSEs is primarily on comparing performance and robustness across alternative management procedures (MPs), rather than on estimating absolute levels of risk. Qualitative methods can augment MSE, but their limitations also need to be recognized. Intelligence certainly needs to play a role in fisheries management, but not at the level of tinkering in the provision of annual advice, which Rochet and Rice apparently advocate, inter alia because this runs the risk of advice following noise rather than signal. Instead, intelligence should come into play in the exercise of oversight through the process of multiannual reviews of MSE and associated MPs. A number of examples are given of the process of interaction with stakeholders which should characterize MSE.
Fil: Butterworth, Douglas S.. University of Cape Town; Sudáfrica
Fil: Bentley, Nokome. Trophia Ltd; Nueva Zelanda
Fil: De Oliveira, José A. A.. Centre for Environment. Fisheries and Aquaculture Science; Reino Unido
Fil: Donovan, Gregory P.. International Whaling Commission; Reino Unido
Fil: Kell, Laurence T.. ICCAT Secretariat; España
Fil: Parma, Ana María. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Nacional Patagónico; Argentina
Fil: Punt, André E.. University of Washington; Estados Unidos. CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research; Australia
Fil: Sainsbury, Keith J.. University of Tasmania; Australia
Fil: Smith, Anthony D. M.. CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research; Australia
Fil: Stokes, T. Kevin. No especifica;
Materia
Management Procedure
Management Strategy Evaluation
Monte Carlo Simulation
Risk Estimation
Uncertainty
Nivel de accesibilidad
acceso abierto
Condiciones de uso
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/ar/
Repositorio
CONICET Digital (CONICET)
Institución
Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
OAI Identificador
oai:ri.conicet.gov.ar:11336/63199

id CONICETDig_f71e3b520cbee926f50cbbbdbaa9192e
oai_identifier_str oai:ri.conicet.gov.ar:11336/63199
network_acronym_str CONICETDig
repository_id_str 3498
network_name_str CONICET Digital (CONICET)
spelling Purported flaws in management strategy evaluation: Basic problems or misinterpretations?Butterworth, Douglas S.Bentley, NokomeDe Oliveira, José A. A.Donovan, Gregory P.Kell, Laurence T.Parma, Ana MaríaPunt, André E.Sainsbury, Keith J.Smith, Anthony D. M.Stokes, T. KevinManagement ProcedureManagement Strategy EvaluationMonte Carlo SimulationRisk EstimationUncertaintyhttps://purl.org/becyt/ford/4.1https://purl.org/becyt/ford/4Rochet and Rice, while recognizing management strategy evaluation (MSE) as an important step forward in fisheries management, level a number of criticisms at its implementation. Some of their points are sound, such as the need for care in representing uncertainties and for thorough documentation of the process. However, others evidence important misunderstandings. Although the difficulties in estimating tail probabilities and risks, as discussed by Rochet and Rice, are well known, their arguments that Efron's nonparametric bootstrap re-sampling method underestimates the probabilities of low values are flawed. In any case, though, the focus of MSEs is primarily on comparing performance and robustness across alternative management procedures (MPs), rather than on estimating absolute levels of risk. Qualitative methods can augment MSE, but their limitations also need to be recognized. Intelligence certainly needs to play a role in fisheries management, but not at the level of tinkering in the provision of annual advice, which Rochet and Rice apparently advocate, inter alia because this runs the risk of advice following noise rather than signal. Instead, intelligence should come into play in the exercise of oversight through the process of multiannual reviews of MSE and associated MPs. A number of examples are given of the process of interaction with stakeholders which should characterize MSE.Fil: Butterworth, Douglas S.. University of Cape Town; SudáfricaFil: Bentley, Nokome. Trophia Ltd; Nueva ZelandaFil: De Oliveira, José A. A.. Centre for Environment. Fisheries and Aquaculture Science; Reino UnidoFil: Donovan, Gregory P.. International Whaling Commission; Reino UnidoFil: Kell, Laurence T.. ICCAT Secretariat; EspañaFil: Parma, Ana María. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Nacional Patagónico; ArgentinaFil: Punt, André E.. University of Washington; Estados Unidos. CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research; AustraliaFil: Sainsbury, Keith J.. University of Tasmania; AustraliaFil: Smith, Anthony D. M.. CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research; AustraliaFil: Stokes, T. Kevin. No especifica;Oxford University Press2010-04info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionhttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501info:ar-repo/semantics/articuloapplication/pdfapplication/pdfhttp://hdl.handle.net/11336/63199Butterworth, Douglas S.; Bentley, Nokome; De Oliveira, José A. A.; Donovan, Gregory P.; Kell, Laurence T.; et al.; Purported flaws in management strategy evaluation: Basic problems or misinterpretations?; Oxford University Press; ICES Journal of Marine Science; 67; 3; 4-2010; 567-5741054-31391095-9289CONICET DigitalCONICETenginfo:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/doi/10.1093/icesjms/fsq009info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/url/https://academic.oup.com/icesjms/article/67/3/567/734358info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccesshttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/ar/reponame:CONICET Digital (CONICET)instname:Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas2025-09-29T10:27:15Zoai:ri.conicet.gov.ar:11336/63199instacron:CONICETInstitucionalhttp://ri.conicet.gov.ar/Organismo científico-tecnológicoNo correspondehttp://ri.conicet.gov.ar/oai/requestdasensio@conicet.gov.ar; lcarlino@conicet.gov.arArgentinaNo correspondeNo correspondeNo correspondeopendoar:34982025-09-29 10:27:15.277CONICET Digital (CONICET) - Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicasfalse
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Purported flaws in management strategy evaluation: Basic problems or misinterpretations?
title Purported flaws in management strategy evaluation: Basic problems or misinterpretations?
spellingShingle Purported flaws in management strategy evaluation: Basic problems or misinterpretations?
Butterworth, Douglas S.
Management Procedure
Management Strategy Evaluation
Monte Carlo Simulation
Risk Estimation
Uncertainty
title_short Purported flaws in management strategy evaluation: Basic problems or misinterpretations?
title_full Purported flaws in management strategy evaluation: Basic problems or misinterpretations?
title_fullStr Purported flaws in management strategy evaluation: Basic problems or misinterpretations?
title_full_unstemmed Purported flaws in management strategy evaluation: Basic problems or misinterpretations?
title_sort Purported flaws in management strategy evaluation: Basic problems or misinterpretations?
dc.creator.none.fl_str_mv Butterworth, Douglas S.
Bentley, Nokome
De Oliveira, José A. A.
Donovan, Gregory P.
Kell, Laurence T.
Parma, Ana María
Punt, André E.
Sainsbury, Keith J.
Smith, Anthony D. M.
Stokes, T. Kevin
author Butterworth, Douglas S.
author_facet Butterworth, Douglas S.
Bentley, Nokome
De Oliveira, José A. A.
Donovan, Gregory P.
Kell, Laurence T.
Parma, Ana María
Punt, André E.
Sainsbury, Keith J.
Smith, Anthony D. M.
Stokes, T. Kevin
author_role author
author2 Bentley, Nokome
De Oliveira, José A. A.
Donovan, Gregory P.
Kell, Laurence T.
Parma, Ana María
Punt, André E.
Sainsbury, Keith J.
Smith, Anthony D. M.
Stokes, T. Kevin
author2_role author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
dc.subject.none.fl_str_mv Management Procedure
Management Strategy Evaluation
Monte Carlo Simulation
Risk Estimation
Uncertainty
topic Management Procedure
Management Strategy Evaluation
Monte Carlo Simulation
Risk Estimation
Uncertainty
purl_subject.fl_str_mv https://purl.org/becyt/ford/4.1
https://purl.org/becyt/ford/4
dc.description.none.fl_txt_mv Rochet and Rice, while recognizing management strategy evaluation (MSE) as an important step forward in fisheries management, level a number of criticisms at its implementation. Some of their points are sound, such as the need for care in representing uncertainties and for thorough documentation of the process. However, others evidence important misunderstandings. Although the difficulties in estimating tail probabilities and risks, as discussed by Rochet and Rice, are well known, their arguments that Efron's nonparametric bootstrap re-sampling method underestimates the probabilities of low values are flawed. In any case, though, the focus of MSEs is primarily on comparing performance and robustness across alternative management procedures (MPs), rather than on estimating absolute levels of risk. Qualitative methods can augment MSE, but their limitations also need to be recognized. Intelligence certainly needs to play a role in fisheries management, but not at the level of tinkering in the provision of annual advice, which Rochet and Rice apparently advocate, inter alia because this runs the risk of advice following noise rather than signal. Instead, intelligence should come into play in the exercise of oversight through the process of multiannual reviews of MSE and associated MPs. A number of examples are given of the process of interaction with stakeholders which should characterize MSE.
Fil: Butterworth, Douglas S.. University of Cape Town; Sudáfrica
Fil: Bentley, Nokome. Trophia Ltd; Nueva Zelanda
Fil: De Oliveira, José A. A.. Centre for Environment. Fisheries and Aquaculture Science; Reino Unido
Fil: Donovan, Gregory P.. International Whaling Commission; Reino Unido
Fil: Kell, Laurence T.. ICCAT Secretariat; España
Fil: Parma, Ana María. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Nacional Patagónico; Argentina
Fil: Punt, André E.. University of Washington; Estados Unidos. CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research; Australia
Fil: Sainsbury, Keith J.. University of Tasmania; Australia
Fil: Smith, Anthony D. M.. CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research; Australia
Fil: Stokes, T. Kevin. No especifica;
description Rochet and Rice, while recognizing management strategy evaluation (MSE) as an important step forward in fisheries management, level a number of criticisms at its implementation. Some of their points are sound, such as the need for care in representing uncertainties and for thorough documentation of the process. However, others evidence important misunderstandings. Although the difficulties in estimating tail probabilities and risks, as discussed by Rochet and Rice, are well known, their arguments that Efron's nonparametric bootstrap re-sampling method underestimates the probabilities of low values are flawed. In any case, though, the focus of MSEs is primarily on comparing performance and robustness across alternative management procedures (MPs), rather than on estimating absolute levels of risk. Qualitative methods can augment MSE, but their limitations also need to be recognized. Intelligence certainly needs to play a role in fisheries management, but not at the level of tinkering in the provision of annual advice, which Rochet and Rice apparently advocate, inter alia because this runs the risk of advice following noise rather than signal. Instead, intelligence should come into play in the exercise of oversight through the process of multiannual reviews of MSE and associated MPs. A number of examples are given of the process of interaction with stakeholders which should characterize MSE.
publishDate 2010
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2010-04
dc.type.none.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501
info:ar-repo/semantics/articulo
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.none.fl_str_mv http://hdl.handle.net/11336/63199
Butterworth, Douglas S.; Bentley, Nokome; De Oliveira, José A. A.; Donovan, Gregory P.; Kell, Laurence T.; et al.; Purported flaws in management strategy evaluation: Basic problems or misinterpretations?; Oxford University Press; ICES Journal of Marine Science; 67; 3; 4-2010; 567-574
1054-3139
1095-9289
CONICET Digital
CONICET
url http://hdl.handle.net/11336/63199
identifier_str_mv Butterworth, Douglas S.; Bentley, Nokome; De Oliveira, José A. A.; Donovan, Gregory P.; Kell, Laurence T.; et al.; Purported flaws in management strategy evaluation: Basic problems or misinterpretations?; Oxford University Press; ICES Journal of Marine Science; 67; 3; 4-2010; 567-574
1054-3139
1095-9289
CONICET Digital
CONICET
dc.language.none.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/doi/10.1093/icesjms/fsq009
info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/url/https://academic.oup.com/icesjms/article/67/3/567/734358
dc.rights.none.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/ar/
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
rights_invalid_str_mv https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/ar/
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv application/pdf
application/pdf
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Oxford University Press
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Oxford University Press
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv reponame:CONICET Digital (CONICET)
instname:Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
reponame_str CONICET Digital (CONICET)
collection CONICET Digital (CONICET)
instname_str Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
repository.name.fl_str_mv CONICET Digital (CONICET) - Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
repository.mail.fl_str_mv dasensio@conicet.gov.ar; lcarlino@conicet.gov.ar
_version_ 1844614274457010176
score 13.070432