Skip to content
Home
About Us
Resources
Profiles Metrics
Authors Directory
Institutions Directory
Top Authors
Top Institutions
Top Sponsors
AI Digest
Contact Us
Menu
Home
About Us
Resources
Profiles Metrics
Authors Directory
Institutions Directory
Top Authors
Top Institutions
Top Sponsors
AI Digest
Contact Us
Home
About Us
Resources
Profiles Metrics
Authors Directory
Institutions Directory
Top Authors
Top Institutions
Top Sponsors
AI Digest
Contact Us
Menu
Home
About Us
Resources
Profiles Metrics
Authors Directory
Institutions Directory
Top Authors
Top Institutions
Top Sponsors
AI Digest
Contact Us
Publication Details
AFRICAN RESEARCH NEXUS
SHINING A SPOTLIGHT ON AFRICAN RESEARCH
agricultural and biological sciences
Purported flaws in management strategy evaluation: Basic problems or misinterpretations?
ICES Journal of Marine Science, Volume 67, No. 3, Year 2010
Notification
URL copied to clipboard!
Description
Rochet and Rice, while recognizing management strategy evaluation (MSE) as an important step forward in fisheries management, level a number of criticisms at its implementation. Some of their points are sound, such as the need for care in representing uncertainties and for thorough documentation of the process. However, others evidence important misunderstandings. Although the difficulties in estimating tail probabilities and risks, as discussed by Rochet and Rice, are well known, their arguments that Efron's nonparametric bootstrap re-sampling method underestimates the probabilities of low values are flawed. In any case, though, the focus of MSEs is primarily on comparing performance and robustness across alternative management procedures (MPs), rather than on estimating absolute levels of risk. Qualitative methods can augment MSE, but their limitations also need to be recognized. Intelligence certainly needs to play a role in fisheries management, but not at the level of tinkering in the provision of annual advice, which Rochet and Rice apparently advocate, inter alia because this runs the risk of advice following noise rather than signal. Instead, intelligence should come into play in the exercise of oversight through the process of multiannual reviews of MSE and associated MPs. A number of examples are given of the process of interaction with stakeholders which should characterize MSE. © 2010 UK and Australian Crown Copyright.
Authors & Co-Authors
Butterworth, Douglas S.
South Africa, Cape Town
University of Cape Town
Bentley, Nokome
New Zealand
Trophia Ltd.
De Oliveira, J. A.A.
United Kingdom, Lowestoft
Centre for the Environment Fisheries and Aquaculture Science
Donovan, Greg P.
United Kingdom, Cambridge
International Whaling Commission
Kell, Laurence T.
Spain, Madrid
Comision Internacional Para la Conservacion Del Atun Atlantico
Parma, Ana María
Argentina, Puerto Madryn
Centro Nacional Patagonico
Punt, André E.
United States, Seattle
University of Washington
Australia, Hobart
Csiro Marine and Atmospheric Research
Sainsbury, Keith J.
Australia, Hobart
University of Tasmania
Smith, Anthony D.M.
Australia, Hobart
Csiro Marine and Atmospheric Research
Stokes, T. Kevin
Unknown Affiliation
Statistics
Citations: 60
Authors: 10
Affiliations: 9
Identifiers
Doi:
10.1093/icesjms/fsq009
ISSN:
10543139
e-ISSN:
10959289
Study Approach
Qualitative