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
- Institución
- Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
- OAI Identificador
- oai:ri.conicet.gov.ar:11336/63199
Ver los metadatos del registro completo
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 |