Lecture 8 Professional Judgment Kevin Crowe 11 Nov. , 2004

Objectives Uncertainty in forest decision making Two approaches to uncertainty Science versus judiciary Approach suitable to professional foresters

Uncertainty In the last 20 years, there have been thousands of natural resource-related administrative appeals Many judicial reviews have alleged arbitrary and capricious decisions The essence of these challenges is certainty Many believe: a good decision is grounded in certainty; a bad decision in uncertainty

Uncertainty The fact is that all decisions are made with some uncertainty. The real question is: How much certainty is reasonable for a given decision?

Context of Uncertainty At some point early in the 20th century, scientists gave up on the dream that one day we would know everything we need to know with certainty E.g., Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle Not only that, but the explosion of knowledge has served to increase uncertainty the more we learn, the more complex does the world appear Therefore our decisions are more uncertain E.g., knowledge of forest ecosystems

Context of Uncertainty The discovery of new knowledge has brought with it an understanding of our lack of knowledge That humans will never have complete knowledge is unsettling for some Many seek comfort in the prospect of a new study, or new monitoring program to rid us of this uncertainty

Context of Uncertainty There is the added prospect that uncertainty may increase in the future Forces may negate the net benefit of new knowledge Enormous volume of information to process Increasing awareness of complexity Expanding geographic scale stand => forest=> landscape => region Conflicting scientific results and opinions Mental limits on human cognition

Context of Uncertainty The lack of certainty confronting natural resource decision makers is a great professional challenge

Context of Uncertainty Another alternative to banishing uncertainty Accept uncertainty There are no absolutely correct answers, only approximations that will be altered by experience This may shift available time to make a decision from inventorying and collecting data To… Reframing problems Analysis Synthesis Consultation Creating alternatives

Two perspectives on uncertainty Science versus judiciary Foresters are indoctrinated in the scientific paradigm Science has very much a binary approach to uncertainty--- yes or no Uncertainty is dealt with statistically: You either accept or reject a null hypothesis on a relationship between two or more variables Accept if there is 95% probability of being correct

Two perspectives on uncertainty Also, in science, the decision atmosphere is generally very narrow A few selected variables in a highly controlled environment

Two perspectives on uncertainty Judiciary Regards uncertainty with a sliding scale Three standards 1. Beyond a reasonable doubt standard: A degree of certainty that fully satisfies, entirely convinces, a prudent person in matters of importance The standard used in criminal law

Two perspectives on uncertainty 2. Clear and convincing evidence standard Between 1 and 3 3. Preponderance of evidence standard A level of certainty that is of greater weight or more convincing than evidence in opposition Used in civil law

Two perspectives on uncertainty The degree of certainty used in decision-making by the judiciary is lower than that of the scientific community The three standards are commonly understood to have p > 90, p> 75, p>50, respectively The decision atmosphere is more comprehensive, and diverse– unlike the controlled environment of science

Standard for Professional Foresters Given these standards of certainty in science and the judiciary, what should be the standard for professional foresters? Sound professional judgment What is this? Which standard?

Standard for Professional Foresters Sound professional judgment…sample definition (Haas, J. of For. Sept. 2003) “A reasonable decision that has given full and fair consideration to all the appropriate information, that is based upon principled and reasoned analysis and the best available science and expertise and complies with applicable laws”

Standard for Professional Foresters The terms used are from judicial doctrine Reasonable decision: Fit and appropriate under the circumstances;i.e., a decision that natural resource decision-makers of ordinary prudence and competence, under similar circumstances, would not view as excessive or immoderate Note: this decision is not compared to an absolutely right decision

Standard for Professional Foresters i.e., establishing criteria Standard for Professional Foresters

Standard for Professional Foresters The range of certainty mirrors that of the judiciary, not the statistician Why? The reality of our world necessitates this toleration of uncertainty… otherwise we’d be paralyzed The courts are the ultimate judges of an agent’s professionalism; therefore it is wise to adopt their perspective Uncertainty exists, but the preponderance of the information, analysis, and science, should be supportive of the decision

Note the "Tools” of Professional Judgment -use best available science -establish criteria (and indicators) -decision analysis (tools, expert opinion, professional experience) -use established planning process -use hindsight given by historical records

Note the Sliding Scale depends on potential consequences -the greater the consequences, the more certainty is expected -extraordinary… potentially catastrophic effects -e.g., decisions involving endangered species differ from routine administrative decisions

Standard for Professional Foresters The two primary ways to strengthen sound professional judgment 1. Create new knowledge 2. Make better decisions

Making better decisions 1. Decision analysis the structuring of a problem and the imposition of analytical techniques to make better decisions Structuring--- allows one to see all the important components– the trees for the forest Analytical techniques– force decisions to be more objective, creative, deliberate, and trackable

Making better decisions 2. Understand how the judiciary thinks English common law has had centuries of making decisions under uncertainty Understanding how the judiciary thinks improves the defensibility of decisions Much on your RPF exam addresses this… I hope

Review The profession of forestry would benefit from 1. Adopting sound professional judgment as the basis for reasonable and defensible decisions 2. Using a sliding scale of acceptable uncertainty 3. Using decision science tools