Selecting experts and identifying the level of consensus is rather vital to the Delphi technique and the recent article in Methods in Ecology and Evolution provides some guidelines for addressing these issues. Neither should the Delphi technique be used as a substitute for quantitative data when it is readily available.
The Delphi technique is however not suitable where the respondent size is very large (several hundreds) or when a face to face discussion is essential. Experts identified six landscape types and nine focal species through this method. They employed it to identify focal species for conservation in a sub-urbanizing region in North America (specifically North Carolina, USA). Similarly, Hess and King (2002) used the Delphi technique as an expert based approach to develop a plan for wildlife conservation. (2012) used the Delphi technique to identify 229 invertebrate species that were either endangered or of ‘mandatory conservation interest’ for which detailed empirical data were lacking. The Delphi technique can be used to fill in data gaps or validate models through experience of the participants. If conducted online, the Delphi technique allows collation of inputs from different geographic locations within limited time and with minimal cost as well.ĭata gaps are rather common in ecology.
It allows participants to explore (or expose) assumptions or information leading to divergent judgments and is thereby useful for complex issues that require pooling of inputs from different disciplines. The Delphi technique works best in situations where there might be strongly polarized opinions (such as human-wildlife conflict) that are difficult to resolve in face-to-face settings. It can be used for a variety of purposes ranging from generating consensus on controversial issues to formulating or evaluating policies relevant to conservation. The Delphi technique is a structured, anonymous and iterative survey of a panel of ‘experts’ or participants. However, it is rather underused in biodiversity sciences and holds considerable potential for further use. Et voila! The Delphi techniqueĬombine these ingredients: anonymity, iteration and feedback, and the Delphi technique emerges! The Delphi technique originated in the 1950s and has been extensively used in many disciplines including medicine, psychology, nursing and tourism. Iteration allows respondents to consider the problem for a longer period of time and learn from others in a controlled interactive setting. Providing written feedback also makes the process more traceable for legal purposes. This is particularly important in uncertain or complex situations. Research in the past has shown that feedback and iteration have a considerable impact in refining the initial estimates. That’s a great start to improve the efficiency of decision making.Īnother way to improve the efficiency would be to use an iterative process with feedback. They are far less likely to be influenced by the opinion of others and can thereby think independently. Individuals can focus on the problem or issue at hand rather than be distracted by allied interpersonal issues of conformity. Some of these biases (such as ego effect and dominance) can be addressed to a large extent by using an anonymous process. How do we harness these messy thought processes and channel them for effective decision-making for biodiversity management? © Henry Martin (The New Yorker Collection/The Cartoon Bank)Ī large number of psychological biases impact the outcomes of group based decision-making. However, people in a group often have different modes of thinking or problem solving, alternate reference frames, subjective biases and varying levels or domains of expertise. Several heads might have an even higher probability of being better than one. Two heads are often better than one in decision making. Post provided by Nibedita Mukherjee (author of The Delphi technique in ecology and biological conservation) The quirky nature of decision making
0 kommentar(er)
