1. Lecture 4 Professional Judgement
Kevin Crowe

2. 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

3. 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?

4. 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
and therefore more uncertain are our decisions
E.g., knowledge of ecosystems

5. 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
They seek comfort in the prospect of a new study, or new monitoring program to rid us of this uncertainty

6. 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 complexity
Expanding geographic scale
Conflicting scientific results and opinions
Mental limits on human cognition

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

8. One solution 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

9. 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

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

11. 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
Standard used in criminal law

12. 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

13. Two perspectives on uncertainty
The degree of certainty used in decion-making by the judiciary is lower than that of the scientific community
The three standards are commonly 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

15. 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?

16. Standard for Professional Foresters
Sound professional judgment…sample definition
“A reasonable decision
that has given full and fair consideration to al the appropriate information,
that is based upon principled and reasoned analysis and the best available science and expertise
and complies with applicable laws”

17. 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 compared to an absolutely right decision

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

19. 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, is supportive

20. Note the "Tools”
-use best available science
-establish criteria
-decision analysis tools
-use established planning process
-use hindsight given by historical records

21. 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

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

23. Making better decisions
1. Decision analysis
the structuring of a problem and the imposition of analytical techniques toi 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 trackables

24. 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

25. 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