IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v32y2012i11p1956-1966.html

Modeling Extreme Risks in Ecology

Author

Listed:
  • Mark Burgman
  • James Franklin
  • Keith R. Hayes
  • Geoffrey R. Hosack
  • Gareth W. Peters
  • Scott A. Sisson

Abstract

Extreme risks in ecology are typified by circumstances in which data are sporadic or unavailable, understanding is poor, and decisions are urgently needed. Expert judgments are pervasive and disagreements among experts are commonplace. We outline approaches to evaluating extreme risks in ecology that rely on stochastic simulation, with a particular focus on methods to evaluate the likelihood of extinction and quasi‐extinction of threatened species, and the likelihood of establishment and spread of invasive pests. We evaluate the importance of assumptions in these assessments and the potential of some new approaches to account for these uncertainties, including hierarchical estimation procedures and generalized extreme value distributions. We conclude by examining the treatment of consequences in extreme risk analysis in ecology and how expert judgment may better be harnessed to evaluate extreme risks.

Suggested Citation

  • Mark Burgman & James Franklin & Keith R. Hayes & Geoffrey R. Hosack & Gareth W. Peters & Scott A. Sisson, 2012. "Modeling Extreme Risks in Ecology," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(11), pages 1956-1966, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:32:y:2012:i:11:p:1956-1966
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2012.01871.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2012.01871.x
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2012.01871.x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Chu-Agor, M.L. & Muñoz-Carpena, R. & Kiker, G.A. & Aiello-Lammens, M.E. & Akçakaya, H.R. & Convertino, M. & Linkov, I., 2012. "Simulating the fate of Florida Snowy Plovers with sea-level rise: Exploring research and management priorities with a global uncertainty and sensitivity analysis perspective," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 224(1), pages 33-47.
    2. Terry Walshe & Mark Burgman, 2010. "A Framework for Assessing and Managing Risks Posed by Emerging Diseases," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(2), pages 236-249, February.
    3. Siegel-Jacobs, Karen & Yates, J. Frank, 1996. "Effects of Procedural and Outcome Accountability on Judgment Quality," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 65(1), pages 1-17, January.
    4. Lev R. Ginzburg & Lawrence B. Slobodkin & Keith Johnson & Andrew G. Bindman, 1982. "Quasiextinction Probabilities as a Measure of Impact on Population Growth," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 2(3), pages 171-181, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. repec:plo:pone00:0084211 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Omid Zadakbar & Faisal Khan & Syed Imtiaz, 2015. "Development of Economic Consequence Methodology for Process Risk Analysis," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(4), pages 713-731, April.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Kang, Yoon Ju & Trotman, Andrew J. & Trotman, Ken T., 2015. "The effect of an Audit Judgment Rule on audit committee members’ professional skepticism: The case of accounting estimates," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 59-76.
    2. Casenave, Eric & Klarmann, Martin, 2020. "The accountability paradox: How holding marketers accountable hinders alignment with short-term marketing goals," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 112(C), pages 95-108.
    3. Kausel, Edgar E. & Culbertson, Satoris S. & Leiva, Pedro I. & Slaughter, Jerel E. & Jackson, Alexander T., 2015. "Too arrogant for their own good? Why and when narcissists dismiss advice," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 33-50.
    4. Christina L. Brown, 1999. "“Do the Right Thing:” Diverging Effects of Accountability in a Managerial Context," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 18(3), pages 230-246.
    5. Kimberley Kolb Ayre & Colleen A. Caldwell & Jonah Stinson & Wayne G. Landis, 2014. "Analysis of Regional Scale Risk of Whirling Disease in Populations of Colorado and Rio Grande Cutthroat Trout Using a Bayesian Belief Network Model," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(9), pages 1589-1605, September.
    6. William T Self & Gregory Mitchell & Barbara A Mellers & Philip E Tetlock & J Angus D Hildreth, 2015. "Balancing Fairness and Efficiency: The Impact of Identity-Blind and Identity-Conscious Accountability on Applicant Screening," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(12), pages 1-17, December.
    7. Jingguo Wang & Yuan Li & H. Raghav Rao, 2017. "Coping Responses in Phishing Detection: An Investigation of Antecedents and Consequences," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 28(2), pages 378-396, June.
    8. Hochwarter, Wayne A. & Ferris, Gerald R. & Gavin, Mark B. & Perrewe, Pamela L. & Hall, Angela T. & Frink, Dwight D., 2007. "Political skill as neutralizer of felt accountability--job tension effects on job performance ratings: A longitudinal investigation," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 102(2), pages 226-239, March.
    9. Matthew W. Ford & Bertie M. Greer, 2005. "Implementing Planned Change: An Empirical Comparison of Theoretical Perspectives," American Journal of Business, Emerald Group Publishing, vol. 20(2), pages 59-69.
    10. Yan Tong & Haipeng Niu & Liangxin Fan, 2016. "Willingness of Farmers to Transform Vacant Rural Residential Land into Cultivated Land in a Major Grain-Producing Area of Central China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(11), pages 1-15, November.
    11. Gilberto Montibeller & L. Alberto Franco & Ashley Carreras, 2020. "A Risk Analysis Framework for Prioritizing and Managing Biosecurity Threats," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(11), pages 2462-2477, November.
    12. Perz, Stephen G. & Muñoz-Carpena, Rafael & Kiker, Gregory & Holt, Robert D., 2013. "Evaluating ecological resilience with global sensitivity and uncertainty analysis," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 263(C), pages 174-186.
    13. Peter L. Boveng & Jay M. Ver Hoef & David E. Withrow & Josh M. London, 2018. "A Bayesian Analysis of Abundance, Trend, and Population Viability for Harbor Seals in Iliamna Lake, Alaska," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(9), pages 1988-2009, September.
    14. Zahra, Shaker A. & Filatotchev, Igor & Wright, Mike, 2009. "How do threshold firms sustain corporate entrepreneurship? The role of boards and absorptive capacity," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 24(3), pages 248-260, May.
    15. Desai, Sreedhari D. & Kouchaki, Maryam, 2015. "Work-report formats and overbilling: How unit-reporting vs. cost-reporting increases accountability and decreases overbilling," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 79-88.
    16. Langhe, Bart de & van Osselaer, Stijn M.J. & Wierenga, Berend, 2011. "The effects of process and outcome accountability on judgment process and performance," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 115(2), pages 238-252, July.
    17. Janina A. Hoffmann & Wolfgang Gaissmaier & Bettina von Helversen, 2017. "Justifying the judgment process affects neither judgment accuracy, nor strategy use," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 12(6), pages 627-641, November.
    18. Christopher A. Mebane, 2010. "Relevance of Risk Predictions Derived from a Chronic Species Sensitivity Distribution with Cadmium to Aquatic Populations and Ecosystems," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(2), pages 203-223, February.
    19. van Rinsum, M., 2019. "Utilizing Incentives and Accountability: In Control in Control?," ERIM Inaugural Address Series Research in Management EIA 2019-078-F&A, Erasmus Research Institute of Management (ERIM), ERIM is the joint research institute of the Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University and the Erasmus School of Economics (ESE) at Erasmus University Rotterdam..
    20. Dischner, Simon, 2015. "Organizational structure, organizational form, and counterproductive work behavior: A competitive test of the bureaucratic and post-bureaucratic views," Scandinavian Journal of Management, Elsevier, vol. 31(4), pages 501-514.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:32:y:2012:i:11:p:1956-1966. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1539-6924 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.