Precautionary principles: a jurisdiction-free framework for decision-making under risk

Fundamental principles of precaution are legal maxims that ask for preventive actions, perhaps as contingent interim measures while relevant information about causality and harm remains unavailable, to minimize the societal impact of potentially severe or irreversible outcomes. Such principles do not explain how to make choices or how to identify what is protective when incomplete and inconsistent scientific evidence of causation characterizes the potential hazards. Rather, they entrust lower jurisdictions, such as agencies or authorities, to make current decisions while recognizing that future information can contradict the scientific basis that supported the initial decision. After reviewing and synthesizing national and international legal aspects of precautionary principles, this paper addresses the key question: How can society manage potentially severe, irreversible or serious environmental outcomes when variability, uncertainty, and limited causal knowledge characterize their decision-making? A decision-analytic solution is outlined that focuses on risky decisions and accounts for prior states of information and scientific beliefs that can be updated as subsequent information becomes available. As a practical and established approach to causal reasoning and decision-making under risk, inherent to precautionary decision-making, these (Bayesian) methods help decision-makers and stakeholders because they formally account for probabilistic outcomes, new information, and are consistent and replicable. Rational choice of an action from among various alternatives-defined as a choice that makes preferred consequences more likely-requires accounting for costs, benefits and the change in risks associated with each candidate action. Decisions under any form of the precautionary principle reviewed must account for the contingent nature of scientific information, creating a link to the decision-analytic principle of expected value of information (VOI), to show the relevance of new information, relative to the initial ( and smaller) set of data on which the decision was based. We exemplify this seemingly simple situation using risk management of BSE. As an integral aspect of causal analysis under risk, the methods developed in this paper permit the addition of non-linear, hormetic dose-response models to the current set of regulatory defaults such as the linear, non-threshold models. This increase in the number of defaults is an important improvement because most of the variants of the precautionary principle require cost-benefit balancing. Specifically, increasing the set of causal defaults accounts for beneficial effects at very low doses. We also show and conclude that quantitative risk assessment dominates qualitative risk assessment, supporting the extension of the set of default causal models.

Vector Error-Correction Models in a consumer packaged goods category forecasting decision support system

A framework for developing marketing category management decision support systems (DSS) based upon the Bayesian Vector Autoregressive (BVAR) model is extended. Since the BVAR model is vulnerable to permanent and temporary shifts in purchasing patterns over time, a form that can correct for the shifts and still provide the other advantages of the BVAR is a Bayesian Vector Error-Correction Model (BVECM). We present the mechanics of extending the DSS to move from a BVAR model to the BVECM model for the category management problem. Several additional iterative steps are required in the DSS to allow the decision maker to arrive at the best forecast possible. The revised marketing DSS framework and model fitting procedures are described. Validation is conducted on a sample problem.

Collaborative decision-making processes for maintaining biodiversity: Two Australian case studies

There have been many models developed by scientists to assist decision-makers in making socio-economic and environmental decisions. It is now recognised that there is a shift in the dominant paradigm to making decisions with stakeholders, rather than making decisions for stakeholders. Our paper investigates two case studies where group model building has been undertaken for maintaining biodiversity in Australia. The first case study focuses on preservation and management of green spaces and biodiversity in metropolitan Melbourne under the umbrella of the Melbourne 2030 planning strategy. A geographical information system is used to collate a number of spatial datasets encompassing a range of cultural and natural assets data layers including: existing open spaces, waterways, threatened fauna and flora, ecological vegetation covers, registered cultural heritage sites, and existing land parcel zoning. Group model building is incorporated into the study through eliciting weightings and ratings of importance for each datasets from urban planners to formulate different urban green system scenarios. The second case study focuses on modelling ecoregions from spatial datasets for the state of Queensland. The modelling combines collaborative expert knowledge and a vast amount of environmental data to build biogeographical classifications of regions. An information elicitation process is used to capture expert knowledge of ecoregions as geographical descriptions, and to transform this into prior probability distributions that characterise regions in terms of environmental variables. This prior information is combined with measured data on the environmental variables within a Bayesian modelling technique to produce the final classified regions. We describe how linked views between descriptive information, mapping and statistical plots are used to decide upon representative regions that satisfy a number of criteria for biodiversity and conservation. This paper discusses the advantages and problems encountered when undertaking group model building. Future research will extend the group model building approach to include interested individuals and community groups.