Prioritisation of wetlands of the Rangitikei catchment : a thesis presented in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Applied Science in Natural Resource Management at Massey University

This study aimed to prioritise wetlands of the Rangitikei Catchment. The prioritisation will enable the Manawatu-Wanganui Regional Council to apply its limited resources in an effective way to preserve the biodiversity of the wetlands of the catchment. A process was designed to achieve the project aim. The first step in the process was the establishment of two conservation goals: 1)Maintain species diversity, 2)Eliminate threats within wetlands. Secondly, the wetlands of the Rangitikei Catchment were surveyed to collect state and pressure information. 25 wetland sites were surveyed using the REWA survey method. Data collected was then analysed, first using the complementarity programme Sites V1.0. However, complementarity analysis did not achieve a clarified prioritisation of wetland sites because extreme variability was found among sites. In particular, complementarity analysis did not respond well to having two very different conservation goals of pressure and state. Therefore, 13 prioritisation criteria were employed based on elements of pressure and state. A method was devised to overcome problems of weighting criteria. True scores were converted to adjusted scores of 1 to 4 using the box and whisker division method. This method also allowed for easier replication and manipulation of data as well as clear visual representation, unlike other methods. A unique prioritisation framework was then devised which allowed multiple criteria (in this study pressure and state) to be assessed simultaneously. The framework also allowed the large amounts of data involved in the prioritisation process to be presented as a single priority ranking. The prioritisation framework is a relatively simple, repeatable and highly adaptable method. The framework does not compromise the contribution of each criterion to the overall value of the wetland. This resulted in prioritisation of the surveyed wetland sites of the Rangitikei Catchment and allowed achievement of the study's conservation goals. The box and whisker division method and prioritisation framework presented in the study are two unique methods that may be applied in future prioritisation programmes. Both methods provide simple and visual representations of the complex processes involved in the prioritisation of wetland sites and respond to multiple and opposing conservation goals. The nature of the prioritisation framework allows information to be added as it becomes available as well as accommodating the addition and expansion of conservation goals

Studying clinical reasoning, part 2: Applying social judgement theory

Part 1 of this paper (Harries and Harries 2001) examined the reasoning studies of the 1980s and 1990s and critiqued the ethnographic and informationprocessing approaches, based on stated information use. The need for an approach that acknowledged the intuitive nature of experienced thinkers’ reasoning was identified. Part 2 describes such an approach ± social judgement theory ± and presents a pilot application in occupational therapy research. The method used is judgement analysis. The issue under study is that of prioritisation policies in community mental health work. The results present the prioritisation policies of four occupational therapists in relation to managing community mental health referrals

Is Waiting-time Prioritisation Welfare Improving?

Rationing by waiting time is commonly used in health care systems with zero or low money prices. Some systems prioritise particular types of patient and offer them lower waiting times. We investigate whether prioritisation is welfare improving when the benefit from treatment is the sum of two components, one of which is not observed by providers. We show that positive prioritisation (shorter waits for patients with higher observable benefit) is welfare improving if the mean observable benefit of the patients who are indifferent about receiving the treat- ment is larger than the mean observable benefit of the patients who receive the treatment. This is true (a) if the distribution of the un- observable benefit is uniform for any distribution of the observable benefit; or (b) if the distribution of the observable benefit is uniform and the distribution of the unobservable benefit is log-concave. We also show that prioritisation is never welfare increasing if and only if the distribution of unobservable benefit is negative exponential.Waiting times, prioritisation, rationing

Composing features by managing inconsistent requirements

One approach to system development is to decompose the requirements into features and specify the individual features before composing them. A major limitation of deferring feature composition is that inconsistency between the solutions to individual features may not be uncovered early in the development, leading to unwanted feature interactions. Syntactic inconsistencies arising from the way software artefacts are described can be addressed by the use of explicit, shared, domain knowledge. However, behavioural inconsistencies are more challenging: they may occur within the requirements associated with two or more features as well as at the level of individual features. Whilst approaches exist that address behavioural inconsistencies at design time, these are overrestrictive in ruling out all possible conflicts and may weaken the requirements further than is desirable. In this paper, we present a lightweight approach to dealing with behavioural inconsistencies at run-time. Requirement Composition operators are introduced that specify a run-time prioritisation to be used on occurrence of a feature interaction. This prioritisation can be static or dynamic. Dynamic prioritisation favours some requirement according to some run-time criterion, for example, the extent to which it is already generating behaviour

Prioritisation in medicine – discussion of a reality

Welche gesellschaftlichen Zwänge wirken auf die Medizin und ihre Anwender ein? Wie ist das Verhältnis von Ökonomie und medizinisch Gebotenem? Wie steht es mit der Finanzierung der nicht evidenzbasierten Behandlung? Stellen Rationierung und Rationalisierung die möglichen Prinzipien der Priorisierung dar? Führt die Priorisierung zur Qualitätsminderung oder gar Sorgfaltsverletzung? Diese Fragen behandelte der 4. Ärztetag am Dom in Frankfurt am Main. ...Which social constraints have an effect on medical care and its users? What is the relationship between economy and what is medically indicated? What about the financing of non-evidence-based treatment? Are rationing and rationalisation the possible principles of prioritisation? Does prioritisation lead to diminished quality or even to gross negligence? All of these questions were addressed at the "4. Ärztetag am Dom" in Frankfurt/Main. ..

Biodiversity protection prioritisation: a 25-year review

There are insufficient resources available globally, nationally and in many regions, to conserve all species, habitats and ecosystems. Prioritisation of targets or actions is a rational response to resource scarcity. Prioritisation can be directed at areas for reservation, species, habitats or ecosystems for management, and threat management actions. The scale at which prioritisation is applied is a fundamental decision, and the range includes global, national, regional and patch. Choice of scale influences availability of data and methods available for prioritisation. Since 1986 availability of data, computing power and expertise available have all improved globally and in many countries. Approaches to prioritisation have evolved during the past 25 years as researchers from several disciplines, including biology, ecology, decision sciences, mathematics and economics, have sought ways to achieve greater output from the resources available for biodiversity conservation. This review surveys the literature and groups prioritisation approaches into the following four categories: reserves and reserve selection, prescriptive costed biodiversity prioritisation, ranked costed biodiversity projects and contracted costed conservation actions. A concluding section considers the limitations of current prioritisation approaches and points to areas for further development

Equal Prioritisation Does Not Yield Lower Levels of Participation in Physical Activities than Higher Prioritisation

Objectives: This study examined whether individuals who assigned equal priority to physical activity and an alternative activity exhibited lower levels of participation in physical activities than individuals who assigned higher priority to physical activity than an alternative activity. In addition, we examined whether a measure of prioritisation derived from an algebraic difference index provided a rigorous test of prioritisation effects. Design: We employed a two-wave prospective design that aimed to predict physical activity participation. Method: Prioritisation, intentions and perceptions of control were measured at the first wave of data collection. After five weeks, we administered follow-up measures of behavioural conflict and physical activity participation. Results: A hierarchical regression analysis showed that although the algebraic difference index was positively associated with measures of physical activity participation, equal prioritisation did not yield lower levels of physical activity participation than high prioritisation. Conclusions: Findings suggest that equal prioritisation is not a less optimal self-regulatory strategy than high prioritisation in the domain of physical activity. Regression coefficients associated with algebraic difference indexes should be interpreted with caution and consider analyses that examine effects of component measures of prioritisation on physical activity participation