The use of a multiple criteria decision analysis to evaluate the effectiveness of landscape and habitat enhancement mechanisms: an example from the South Downs

A range of funding schemes and policy instruments exist to effect enhancement of the landscapes and habitats of the UK. While a number of assessments of these mechanisms have been conducted, little research has been undertaken to compare both quantitatively and qualitatively their relative effectiveness across a range of criteria. It is argued that few tools are available for such a multi-faceted evaluation of effectiveness. A form of Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) is justified and utilized as a framework in which to evaluate the effectiveness of nine mechanisms in relation to the protection of existing areas of chalk grassland and the creation of new areas in the South Downs of England. These include established schemes, such as the Countryside Stewardship and Environmentally Sensitive Area Schemes, along with other less common mechanisms, for example, land purchase and tender schemes. The steps involved in applying an MCDA to evaluate such mechanisms are identified and the process is described. Quantitative results from the comparison of the effectiveness of different mechanisms are presented, although the broader aim of the paper is that of demonstrating the performance of MCDA as a tool for measuring the effectiveness of mechanisms aimed at landscape and habitat enhancement.

Formulating generalised 'goal games' against nature: An illustration from decision-making under uncertainty in agriculture

The games-against-nature approach to the analysis of uncertainty in decision-making relies on the assumption that the behaviour of a decision-maker can be explained by concepts such as maximin, minimax regret, or a similarly defined criterion. In reality, however, these criteria represent a spectrum and, the actual behaviour of a decision-maker is most likely to embody a mixture of such idealisations. This paper proposes that in game-theoretic approach to decision-making under uncertainty, a more realistic representation of a decision-maker's behaviour can be achieved by synthesising games-against-nature with goal programming into a single framework. The proposed formulation is illustrated by using a well-known example from the literature on mathematical programming models for agricultural-decision-making. (c) 2005 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Gaining acceptability for the Bayesian decision-theoretic approach in dose-escalation studies

There has recently been increasing demand for better designs to conduct first-into-man dose-escalation studies more efficiently, more accurately and more quickly. The authors look into the Bayesian decision-theoretic approach and use simulation as a tool to investigate the impact of compromises with conventional practice that might make the procedures more acceptable for implementation. Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Bayesian decision procedures for dose-escalation based on evidence of undesirable events and therapeutic benefit.

In this paper, Bayesian decision procedures are developed for dose-escalation studies based on bivariate observations of undesirable events and signs of therapeutic benefit. The methods generalize earlier approaches taking into account only the undesirable outcomes. Logistic regression models are used to model the two responses, which are both assumed to take a binary form. A prior distribution for the unknown model parameters is suggested and an optional safety constraint can be included. Gain functions to be maximized are formulated in terms of accurate estimation of the limits of a therapeutic window or optimal treatment of the next cohort of subjects, although the approach could be applied to achieve any of a wide variety of objectives. The designs introduced are illustrated through simulation and retrospective implementation to a completed dose-escalation study. Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Decision-making in a phase II clinical trial: a new approach combining Bayesian and frequentist concepts

The aim of a phase H clinical trial is to decide whether or not to develop an experimental therapy further through phase III clinical evaluation. In this paper, we present a Bayesian approach to the phase H trial, although we assume that subsequent phase III clinical trials will hat,e standard frequentist analyses. The decision whether to conduct the phase III trial is based on the posterior predictive probability of a significant result being obtained. This fusion of Bayesian and frequentist techniques accepts the current paradigm for expressing objective evidence of therapeutic value, while optimizing the form of the phase II investigation that leads to it. By using prior information, we can assess whether a phase II study is needed at all, and how much or what sort of evidence is required. The proposed approach is illustrated by the design of a phase II clinical trial of a multi-drug resistance modulator used in combination with standard chemotherapy in the treatment of metastatic breast cancer. Copyright (c) 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Decision-theoretic designs for phase II clinical trials allowing for competing studies

This article describes an approach to optimal design of phase II clinical trials using Bayesian decision theory. The method proposed extends that suggested by Stallard (1998, Biometrics54, 279–294) in which designs were obtained to maximize a gain function including the cost of drug development and the benefit from a successful therapy. Here, the approach is extended by the consideration of other potential therapies, the development of which is competing for the same limited resources. The resulting optimal designs are shown to have frequentist properties much more similar to those traditionally used in phase II trials.