The process focused on problem framing, model evaluation and mode

The process focused on problem framing, model evaluation and model use. The level of stakeholder involvement into the modelling was indirect: Scientists and stakeholders jointly selected scenarios and evaluation criteria, which ensured

a broad scope and high relevance of the evaluation process (see [62] for a complete description of the process). The process contributed to getting acquainted with each other, understanding the framework and terms of the EC LTMP initiative, the basics of the Management Strategy Evaluation approach and Harvest Control Rules (HCR), and a better GW-572016 price common understanding about scientific knowledge, uncertainties and risks. Finally, a HCR consensus was reached among stakeholders, based on latest scientific simulations. In this case study, the JAKFISH scientists took a pragmatic approach, focussing on achieving the operational objective of recommending a HCR for a future LTMP. Moreover, the flexibility of the participatory process resulted in a common understanding of the possibilities and limitations of the scientific model. To quantify “standard” technical uncertainties (inexactness), frequentist uncertainty metrics were used in the modelling, such as error distributions on stock recruitment relationships, on the assessment error buy Panobinostat and on TAC implementation. This part

relates to statistical outcomes of the model, i.e., the source of uncertainty is restricted to the data [62]. To tackle uncertainties relating to unreliability and ignorance, questionnaires, pedigree matrices and a series of science–stakeholder meetings were used to discuss any additional issues that might influence the soundness and the relevance of the scientific input to the policy problem [62, chapter 3]. Three isothipendyl pedigree matrices helped to identify, assess and discuss both quantifiable and non-quantifiable uncertainties: The un/certainty of all data and assumptions used in the models was scored. As a result of applying the various qualitative uncertainty

tools, three major uncertainty issues were identified (e.g., lack of trust in the stock assessment outcomes) and possibilities for their future handling discussed. The effect of a fourth uncertainty issue (the effect of cod abundance on natural mortality) was acknowledged, but nonetheless neglected, arguing that scientists were currently not able to quantify this. From the scientists’ point of view, the pedigree matrices assisted the different scientists to understand each other and facilitated the communication with the stakeholders about scientific uncertainties in an open, transparent way. The pedigree matrixes met the purpose “to reflect the status of knowledge related to the simulations of the long term management plans” [38, p. 28].

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>