187 resultados para Choice under uncertainty
Resumo:
Epidemiological studies report confidence or uncertainty intervals around their estimates. Estimates of the burden of diseases and risk factors are subject to a broader range of uncertainty because of the combination of multiple data sources and value choices. Sensitivity analysis can be used to examine the effects of social values that have been incorporated into the design of the disability–adjusted life year (DALY). Age weight, where a year of healthy life lived at one age is valued differently from at another age, is the most controversial value built into the DALY. The discount rate, which addresses the difference in value of current versus future health benefits, also has been criticized. The distribution of the global disease burden and rankings of various conditions are largely insensitive to alternate assumptions about the discount rate and age weighting. The major effects of discounting and age weighting are to enhance the importance of neuropsychiatric conditions and sexually transmitted infections. The Global Burden of Disease study also has been criticized for estimating mortality and disease burden for regions using incomplete and uncertain data. Including uncertain results, with uncertainty quantified to the extent possible, is preferable, however, to leaving blank cells in tables intended to provide policy makers with an overall assessment of burden of disease. No estimate is generally interpreted as no problem. Greater investment in getting the descriptive epidemiology of diseases and injuries correct in poor countries will do vastly more to reduce uncertainty in disease burden assessments than a philosophical debate about the appropriateness of social value
Resumo:
Humans play a role in deciding the fate of species in the current extinction wave. Because of the previous Similarity Principle, physical attractiveness and likeability, it has been argued that public choice favours the survival of species that satisfy these criteria at the expense of other species. This paper empirically tests this argument by considering a hypothetical ‘Ark’ situation. Surveys of 204 members of the Australian public inquired whether they are in favour of the survival of each of 24 native mammal, bird and reptile species (prior to and after information provision about each species). The species were ranked by percentage of ‘yes’ votes received. Species composition by taxon in various fractions of the ranking was determined. If the previous Similarity Principle holds, mammals should rank highly and dominate the top fractions of animals saved in the hierarchical list. We find that although mammals would be over-represented in the ‘Ark’, birds and reptiles are unlikely to be excluded when social choice is based on numbers ‘voting’ for the survival of each species. Support for the previous Similarity Principle is apparent particularly after information provision. Public policy implications of this are noted and recommendations are given.
Resumo:
Abstract: The Murray-Darling Basin comprises over 1 million km2; it lies within four states and one territory; and over 12, 800 GL of irrigation water is used to produce over 40% of the nation's gross value of agricultural production. This production is used by a diverse collection of some-times mutually exclusive commodities (e.g. pasture; stone fruit; grapes; cotton and field crops). The supply of water for irrigation is subject to climatic and policy uncertainty. Variable inflows mean that water property rights do not provide a guaranteed supply. With increasing public scrutiny and environmental issues facing irrigators, greater pressure is being placed on this finite resource. The uncertainty of the water supply, water quality (salinity), combined with where water is utilised, while attempting to maximising return for investment makes for an interesting research field. The utilisation and comparison of a GAMS and Excel based modelling approach has been used to ask: where should we allocate water?; amongst what commodities?; and how does this affect both the quantity of water and the quality of water along the Murray-Darling river system?