Protocols for listing threatened species can forecast extinction

Risk-ranking protocols are used widely to classify the conservation status of the world's species. Here we report on the first empirical assessment of their reliability by using a retrospective study of 18 pairs of bird and mammal species (one species extinct and the other extant) with eight different assessors. The performance of individual assessors varied substantially, but performance was improved by incorporating uncertainty in parameter estimates and consensus among the assessors. When this was done, the ranks from the protocols were consistent with the extinction outcome in 70-80% of pairs and there were mismatches in only 10-20% of cases. This performance was similar to the subjective judgements of the assessors after they had estimated the range and population parameters required by the protocols, and better than any single parameter. When used to inform subjective judgement, the protocols therefore offer a means of reducing unpredictable biases that may be associated with expert input and have the advantage of making the logic behind assessments explicit. We conclude that the protocols are useful for forecasting extinctions, although they are prone to some errors that have implications for conservation. Some level of error is to be expected, however, given the influence of chance on extinction. The performance of risk assessment protocols may be improved by providing training in the application of the protocols, incorporating uncertainty in parameter estimates and using consensus among multiple assessors, including some who are experts in the application of the protocols. Continued testing and refinement of the protocols may help to provide better absolute estimates of risk, particularly by re-evaluating how the protocols accommodate missing data.

A Bayesian approach to imposing curvature on distance functions

The estimated parameters of output distance functions frequently violate the monotonicity, quasi-convexity and convexity constraints implied by economic theory, leading to estimated elasticities and shadow prices that are incorrectly signed, and ultimately to perverse conclusions concerning the effects of input and output changes on productivity growth and relative efficiency levels. We show how a Bayesian approach can be used to impose these constraints on the parameters of a translog output distance function. Implementing the approach involves the use of a Gibbs sampler with data augmentation. A Metropolis-Hastings algorithm is also used within the Gibbs to simulate observations from truncated pdfs. Our methods are developed for the case where panel data is available and technical inefficiency effects are assumed to be time-invariant. Two models-a fixed effects model and a random effects model-are developed and applied to panel data on 17 European railways. We observe significant changes in estimated elasticities and shadow price ratios when regularity restrictions are imposed. (c) 2004 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Modelling knowledge production performance of research centres with a focus on triple bottom line benchmarking

We demonstrate a portable process for developing a triple bottom line model to measure the knowledge production performance of individual research centres. For the first time, this study also empirically illustrates how a fully units-invariant model of Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) can be used to measure the relative efficiency of research centres by capturing the interaction amongst a common set of multiple inputs and outputs. This study is particularly timely given the increasing transparency required by governments and industries that fund research activities. The process highlights the links between organisational objectives, desired outcomes and outputs while the emerging performance model represents an executive managerial view. This study brings consistency to current measures that often rely on ratios and univariate analyses that are not otherwise conducive to relative performance analysis.