Spatial Stochastic Simulation Offers Potential as a Quantitative Method for Pest Risk Analysis

Pest risk analysis represents an emerging field of risk analysis that evaluates the potential risks of the introduction and establishment of plant pests into a new geographic location and then assesses the management options to reduce those potential risks. Development of new and adapted methodology is required to answer questions concerning pest risk analysis of exotic plant pests. This research describes a new method for predicting the potential establishment and spread of a plant pest into new areas using a case study, Ralstonia solanacearum, a bacterial disease of potato. This method combines current quantitative methodologies, stochastic simulation, and geographic information systems with knowledge of pest biology and environmental data to derive new information about pest establishment potential in a geographical region where a pest had not been introduced. This proposed method extends an existing methodology for matching pest characteristics with environmental conditions by modeling and simulating dissemination behavior of a pest organism. Issues related to integrating spatial variables into risk analysis models are further discussed in this article.     

Robustness of Risk Maps and Survey Networks to Knowledge Gaps About a New Invasive Pest

In pest risk assessment it is frequently necessary to make management decisions regarding emerging threats under severe uncertainty. Although risk maps provide useful decision support for invasive alien species, they rarely address knowledge gaps associated with the underlying risk model or how they may change the risk estimates. Failure to recognize uncertainty leads to risk‐ignorant decisions and miscalculation of expected impacts as well as the costs required to minimize these impacts. Here we use the information gap concept to evaluate the robustness of risk maps to uncertainties in key assumptions about an invading organism. We generate risk maps with a spatial model of invasion that simulates potential entries of an invasive pest via international marine shipments, their spread through a landscape, and establishment on a susceptible host. In particular, we focus on the question of how much uncertainty in risk model assumptions can be tolerated before the risk map loses its value. We outline this approach with an example of a forest pest recently detected in North America, Sirex noctilio Fabricius. The results provide a spatial representation of the robustness of predictions of S. noctilio invasion risk to uncertainty and show major geographic hotspots where the consideration of uncertainty in model parameters may change management decisions about a new invasive pest. We then illustrate how the dependency between the extent of uncertainties and the degree of robustness of a risk map can be used to select a surveillance network design that is most robust to knowledge gaps about the pest.     

Augmenting the Deliberative Method for Ranking Risks

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) characterized and prioritized the physical cross‐border threats and hazards to the nation stemming from terrorism, market‐driven illicit flows of people and goods (illegal immigration, narcotics, funds, counterfeits, and weaponry), and other nonmarket concerns (movement of diseases, pests, and invasive species). These threats and hazards pose a wide diversity of consequences with very different combinations of magnitudes and likelihoods, making it very challenging to prioritize them. This article presents the approach that was used at DHS to arrive at a consensus regarding the threats and hazards that stand out from the rest based on the overall risk they pose. Due to time constraints for the decision analysis, it was not feasible to apply multiattribute methodologies like multiattribute utility theory or the analytic hierarchy process. Using a holistic approach was considered, such as the deliberative method for ranking risks first published in this journal. However, an ordinal ranking alone does not indicate relative or absolute magnitude differences among the risks. Therefore, the use of the deliberative method for ranking risks is not sufficient for deciding whether there is a material difference between the top‐ranked and bottom‐ranked risks, let alone deciding what the stand‐out risks are. To address this limitation of ordinal rankings, the deliberative method for ranking risks was augmented by adding an additional step to transform the ordinal ranking into a ratio scale ranking. This additional step enabled the selection of stand‐out risks to help prioritize further analysis.     

What Can Decision Analysis Do for Invasive Species Management?

Decisions about management of invasive species are difficult for all the reasons typically addressed by multiattribute decision analysis: uncertain outcomes, multiple and conflicting objectives, and many interested parties with differing views on both facts and values. This article illustrates how the tools of multiattribute analysis can improve management of invasive species, with an emphasis on making explicit the social values and preferences that must inform invasive species management. Risk assessment protocols developed previously for invasive species management typically suffer from two interacting flaws: (1) separating risk assessment from risk management, thus disrupting essential connections between the social values at stake in invasive species decisions and the scientific knowledge necessary to predict the likely impacts of management actions, and (2) relying on expert judgment about risk framed in qualitative and value-laden terms, inadvertently mixing the expert's judgment about what is likely to happen with personal preferences. Using the values structuring and probability-modeling elements of formal decision analysis can remedy these difficulties and make invasive species management responsive to both good science and public values. The management of feral pigs in Hawaiian ecosystems illustrates the need for such an integrated approach.     

A Framework for Assessing and Managing Risks Posed by Emerging Diseases

Frameworks for analyzing the risks of emerging diseases and invasive species often have relied on unstructured estimates of likelihoods and consequences. We suggest a flexible alternative that offers more transparent analysis without need for additional data. Its strength lies in explicit and complementary treatment of technical and social judgments. We describe a system in which cognitive maps, Bayes nets, and multicriteria analysis can be used in tandem to structure a problem, identify exposure pathways, combine data and expert judgement to estimate the likelihoods, and assess consequences of alternative decisions. These tools may be employed in participatory settings or as part of standard regulatory practice. We illustrate this approach with an assessment of the management of an emerging disease that poses a hazard to Australia.     

Principles for Conduct of Pest Risk Analyses: Report of an Expert Workshop

The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) have focused attention on risk assessment of potential insect, weed, and animal pests and diseases of livestock. These risks have traditionally been addressed through quarantine protocols ranging from limits on the geographical areas from which a product may originate, postharvest disinfestation procedures like fumigation, and inspections at points of export and import, to outright bans. To ensure that plant and animal protection measures are not used as nontariff trade barriers, GATT and NAFTA require pest risk analysis (PRA) to support quarantine decisions. The increased emphasis on PRA has spurred multiple efforts at the national and international level to design frameworks for the conduct of these analyses. As approaches to pest risk analysis proliferate, and the importance of the analyses grows, concerns have arisen about the scientific and technical conduct of pest risk analysis. In January of 1997, the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis (HCRA) held an invitation-only workshop in Washington, D.C. to bring experts in risk analysis and pest characterization together to develop general principles for pest risk analysis. Workshop participants examined current frameworks for PRA, discussed strengths and weaknesses of the approaches, and formulated principles, based on years of experience with risk analysis in other setting and knowledge of the issues specific to analysis of pests. The principles developed highlight the both the similarities of pest risk analysis to other forms of risk analysis, and its unique attributes.     

A Deliberative Method for Ranking Risks (II): Evaluation of Validity and Agreement among Risk Managers

A deliberative method for ranking risks was evaluated in a study involving 218 risk managers. Both holistic and multiattribute procedures were used to assess individual and group rankings of health and safety risks facing students at a fictitious middle school. Consistency between the rankings that emerged from these two procedures was reasonably high for individuals and for groups, suggesting that these procedures capture an underlying construct of riskiness. Participants reported high levels of satisfaction with their groups' decision-making processes and the resulting rankings, and these reports were corroborated by regression analyses. Risk rankings were similar across individuals and groups, even though individuals and groups did not always agree on the relative importance of risk attributes. Lower consistency between the risk rankings from the holistic and multiattribute procedures and lower agreement among individuals and groups regarding these rankings were observed for a set of high-variance risks. Nonetheless, the generally high levels of consistency, satisfaction, and agreement suggest that this deliberative method is capable of producing risk rankings that can serve as informative inputs to public risk-management decision making.     

Evaluating Critical Uncertainty Thresholds in a Spatial Model of Forest Pest Invasion Risk

Pest risk maps can provide useful decision support in invasive species management, but most do not adequately consider the uncertainty associated with predicted risk values. This study explores how increased uncertainty in a risk model's numeric assumptions might affect the resultant risk map. We used a spatial stochastic model, integrating components for entry, establishment, and spread, to estimate the risks of invasion and their variation across a two-dimensional landscape for Sirex noctilio , a nonnative woodwasp recently detected in the United States and Canada. Here, we present a sensitivity analysis of the mapped risk estimates to variation in key model parameters. The tested parameter values were sampled from symmetric uniform distributions defined by a series of nested bounds (±5%, … , ±40%) around the parameters' initial values. The results suggest that the maximum annual spread distance, which governs long-distance dispersal, was by far the most sensitive parameter. At ±15% or larger variability bound increments for this parameter, there were noteworthy shifts in map risk values, but no other parameter had a major effect, even at wider bounds of variation. The methodology presented here is generic and can be used to assess the impact of uncertainties on the stability of pest risk maps as well as to identify geographic areas for which management decisions can be made confidently, regardless of uncertainty.     

Knowledge-Based Risk Assessment Under Uncertainty for Species Invasion

Management of invasive species depends on developing prevention and control strategies through comprehensive risk assessment frameworks that need a thorough analysis of exposure to invasive species. However, accurate exposure analysis of invasive species can be a daunting task because of the inherent uncertainty in invasion processes. Risk assessment of invasive species under uncertainty requires potential integration of expert judgment with empirical information, which often can be incomplete, imprecise, and fragmentary. The representation of knowledge in classical risk models depends on the formulation of a precise probabilistic value or well-defined joint distribution of unknown parameters. However, expert knowledge and judgments are often represented in value-laden terms or preference-ordered criteria. We offer a novel approach to risk assessment by using a dominance-based rough set approach to account for preference order in the domains of attributes in the set of risk classes. The model is illustrated with an example showing how a knowledge-centric risk model can be integrated with the dominance-based principle of rough set to derive minimal covering "if ... , then...," decision rules to reason over a set of possible invasion scenarios. The inconsistency and ambiguity in the data set is modeled using the rough set concept of boundary region adjoining lower and upper approximation of risk classes. Finally, we present an extension of rough set to evidence a theoretic interpretation of risk measures of invasive species in a spatial context. In this approach, the multispecies interactions in an invasion risk are approximated with imprecise probability measures through a combination of spatial neighborhood information of risk estimation in terms of belief and plausibility.     

Assessment of Ecological Risks at Former Landfill Site Using TRIAD Procedure and Multicriteria Analysis

Old industrial landfills are important sources of environmental contamination in Europe, including Finland. In this study, we demonstrated the combination of TRIAD procedure, multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA), and statistical Monte Carlo analysis for assessing the risks to terrestrial biota in a former landfill site contaminated by petroleum hydrocarbons (PHCs) and metals. First, we generated hazard quotients by dividing the concentrations of metals and PHCs in soil by the corresponding risk‐based ecological benchmarks. Then we conducted ecotoxicity tests using five plant species, earthworms, and potworms, and determined the abundance and diversity of soil invertebrates from additional samples. We aggregated the results in accordance to the methods used in the TRIAD procedure, conducted rating of the assessment methods based on their performance in terms of specific criteria, and weighted the criteria using two alternative weighting techniques to produce performance scores for each method. We faced problems in using the TRIAD procedure, for example, the results from the animal counts had to be excluded from the calculation of integrated risk estimates (IREs) because our reference soil sample showed the lowest biodiversity and abundance of soil animals. In addition, hormesis hampered the use of the results from the ecotoxicity tests. The final probabilistic IREs imply significant risks at all sampling locations. Although linking MCDA with TRIAD provided a useful means to study and consider the performance of the alternative methods in predicting ecological risks, some uncertainties involved still remained outside the quantitative analysis.     

Project risk management using multiple criteria decision-making technique and decision tree analysis: a case study of Indian oil refinery

This study proposes an integrated analytical framework for effective management of project risks using combined multiple criteria decision-making technique and decision tree analysis. First, a conceptual risk management model was developed through thorough literature review. The model was then applied through action research on a petroleum oil refinery construction project in the Central part of India in order to demonstrate its effectiveness. Oil refinery construction projects are risky because of technical complexity, resource unavailability, involvement of many stakeholders and strict environmental requirements. Although project risk management has been researched extensively, practical and easily adoptable framework is missing. In the proposed framework, risks are identified using cause and effect diagram, analysed using the analytic hierarchy process and responses are developed using the risk map. Additionally, decision tree analysis allows modelling various options for risk response development and optimises selection of risk mitigating strategy. The proposed risk management framework could be easily adopted and applied in any project and integrated with other project management knowledge areas.     

Communicating supply chain risks and mitigation strategies: a comprehensive framework

Concerning the increasing emphasis on risk management in this uncertain global environment, there is an urgent demand for practical decision support tools that support supply chain risk communication and management. This research proposes an integrated framework that takes explicit account of multiple types of risk in aiding decision-making, and compares and ranks alternative risk mitigation strategies individually and collectively in indicator basis using fuzzy set theory and multiple criteria decision analysis methods. Through an illustrative case, the research demonstrates that the proposed framework provides a holistic view of supply chain risks and enables firms to foresee, spot and respond to the exposed risks in an effective and efficient manner.     

Establishment Risks for Invasive Species

This article presents a quantitative methodology for evaluating the probability of invasive pest species establishing persistent populations. The estimation of pest establishment relies on data and information describing the biology and ecology of the pest and its interactions with potential host species and the regional environment. This information is developed using a model construct borrowed from theoretical population ecology. The methodology for estimating the probability of pest establishment is part of an overall framework that explores the implications of reductions in pest invasions on subsequent establishment. The risk reduction framework integrates the engineering aspects of different technologies for reducing pest entry, the biology and ecology of pest species, the suitability of potentially susceptible hosts, and the quality of available habitats. The methodology for estimating the risk of establishment is presented using an example pest, the Asian longhorned beetle ( Anoplophora glabripennis ), which has been introduced into the United States via solid wood packing materials (SWPM) used in international commerce. Uncertainties inherent to the estimation of model parameters that determine the risk of establishment are defined, quantified, and propagated through the population model. Advantages and limitations of the proposed methodology are discussed along with recommendations to make the approach more useful in the management of risks posed by the establishment of pest populations.     

A Simple Upper Limit for the Sum of the Risks of the Components in a Mixture

Natural or manufactured products may contain mixtures of carcinogens and the human environment certainly contains mixtures of carcinogens. Various authors have shown that the total risk of a mixture can be approximated by the sum of the risks of the individual components under a variety of conditions at low doses. Under these conditions, summing the individual estimated upper bound risks, as currently often done, is too conservative because it is unlikely that all risks for a mixture are at their maximum levels simultaneously. In the absence of synergism, a simple procedure is proposed for estimating a more appropriate upper bound of the additive risks for a mixture of carcinogens. These simple limits also apply to noncancer endpoints when the risks of the components are approximately additive.     

INCORPORATING SALES FORCE PREFERENCES IN A GOAL PROGRAMMING MODEL FOR THE SALES RESOURCE ALLOCATION PROBLEM

This note presents a model for the sales territory assignment and resource allocation problem. The integer-goal-programming model includes input from the sales representatives in the form of preference values along with organizational goal values from management. The approach integrates the multiple objectiive inputs both for individual sales reprresentatives and for the organization into a single model by employing the approaches of multiattribute utility theory and multicriteria decision making. The purpose of the model is to provide a vehicle for testing various strategies and assessing the impact of those strategies on the sales representatives’utilities and the organization's goals.     

An Integrated Framework for Environmental Multi‐Impact Spatial Risk Analysis

Quantitative risk analysis is being extensively employed to support policymakers and provides a strong conceptual framework for evaluating decision alternatives under uncertainty. Many problems involving environmental risks are, however, of a spatial nature, i.e., containing spatial impacts, spatial vulnerabilities, and spatial risk‐mitigation alternatives. Recent developments in multicriteria spatial analysis have enabled the assessment and aggregation of multiple impacts, supporting policymakers in spatial evaluation problems. However, recent attempts to conduct spatial multicriteria risk analysis have generally been weakly conceptualized, without adequate roots in quantitative risk analysis. Moreover, assessments of spatial risk often neglect the multidimensional nature of spatial impacts (e.g., social, economic, human) that are typically occurring in such decision problems. The aim of this article is therefore to suggest a conceptual quantitative framework for environmental multicriteria spatial risk analysis based on expected multi‐attribute utility theory. The framework proposes: (i) the formal assessment of multiple spatial impacts; (ii) the aggregation of these multiple spatial impacts; (iii) the assessment of spatial vulnerabilities and probabilities of occurrence of adverse events; (iv) the computation of spatial risks; (v) the assessment of spatial risk mitigation alternatives; and (vi) the design and comparison of spatial risk mitigation alternatives (e.g., reductions of vulnerabilities and/or impacts). We illustrate the use of the framework in practice with a case study based on a flood‐prone area in northern Italy.     

Use of Multicriteria Decision Analysis to Support Weight of Evidence Evaluation

Weight of evidence (WOE) methods are key components of ecological and human health risk assessments. Most WOE applications rely on the qualitative integration of diverse lines of evidence (LOE) representing impact on ecological receptors and humans. Recent calls for transparency in assessments and justifiability of management decisions are pushing the community to consider quantitative methods for integrated risk assessment and management. This article compares and contrasts the type of information required for application of individual WOE techniques and the outcomes that they provide in ecological risk assessment and proposes a multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) framework for integrating individual LOE in support of management decisions. The use of quantitative WOE techniques is illustrated for a hypothetical but realistic case study of selecting remedial alternatives at a contaminated aquatic site. Use of formal MCDA does not necessarily eliminate biases and judgment calls necessary for selecting remedial alternatives, but allows for transparent evaluation and fusion of individual LOE. It also provides justifiable methods for selecting remedial alternatives consistent with stakeholder and decision‐maker values.     

IMP: A decision aid for multiattribute evaluation using imprecise weight estimates

In multicriteria analysis, weights are inferred from judgements. Judgements are subject to uncertainty and the weights found depend on the method used so that weights must necessarily be imprecise. Describing weights by a suitable probability distribution captures this imprecision and leads to correspondingly imprecise estimates of the multiattribute scores given to alternatives. A method is described which enables the parameters of a Dirichlet distribution to be found from three point weight estimates and for this to be used to determine whether or not alternatives may justifiably be differentiated by their scores. A simple chart shows this information and permits easy interaction. An illustration shows the effects of different sources of imprecision and of aggregating individual assessments in a group.     

Public Values in Risk Debates

Both the issues inherent in regulation of specific risks and the contexts in which such regulatory processes occur are often characterized by confusion and controversy. Tools based on multiattribute utility measurement (MAUT) can help to clarify public values in risk debates and thus to facilitate option invention and decision making. Stakeholder group representatives, in interaction with an analyst, structure their values relevant to the problem into a value tree. The analyst prepares a common tree, iterating until all stakeholder representatives accept it. Stakeholders express their values as weights on the common tree. This provides a basis for option invention and negotiation. The paper presents three illustrative applications.     

The Role of Insurance in Managing Natural Hazard Risks: Private Versus Social Decisions

We explore the interaction between individual and collective decisions concerning natural hazards. Collective actions such as building a dam change the risks faced by private individuals. We show that, with proper incentives, individual reactions to such changes in risk can serve to enhance risk management by utilizing individual's decisions to take account of their specialized knowledge about their risk preferences and losses. We demonstrate that the efficient response to construction of a dam may be private actions that lead to a fully anticipated increase in flood damage. In such instances, zoning that focuses on reducing flood damage may lead to less efficient use of the flood plain. More generally, even where incentives for underinvestment in market insurance and self-insurance are present, constraining use of the flood plain by zoning will not generally lead to efficient outcomes. The model identifying conditions under which informed individuals have the incentives to make efficient decisions is powerful and directs attention toward more fruitful approaches.