Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29362389›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2018

Capturing expert uncertainty in spatial cumulative impact assessments.

Alice R Jones, Zoë A Doubleday, Thomas A A Prowse, Kathryn H Wiltshire, Marty R Deveney, Tim Ward, Sally L Scrivens, Phillip Cassey, Laura G O'Connell, Bronwyn M Gillanders

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Incorporating stressor interactions into spatially explicit cumulative impact assessments.Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America · 2025
    Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Alice R JonesThe University of Adelaide, School of Biological Sciences and Environment Institute, Adelaide, SA, 5005, Australia. alice.jones01@adelaide.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6157-2024
Zoë A DoubledayThe University of Adelaide, School of Biological Sciences and Environment Institute, Adelaide, SA, 5005, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0045-6377
Thomas A A ProwseThe University of Adelaide, School of Biological Sciences and Environment Institute, Adelaide, SA, 5005, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4093-767X
Kathryn H WiltshireSouth Australian Research and Development Institute, Aquatic Sciences, West Beach, SA, 5024, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4524-7686
Marty R DeveneySouth Australian Research and Development Institute, Aquatic Sciences, West Beach, SA, 5024, Australia.
Tim WardSouth Australian Research and Development Institute, Aquatic Sciences, West Beach, SA, 5024, Australia.
Sally L ScrivensThe University of Adelaide, School of Biological Sciences and Environment Institute, Adelaide, SA, 5005, Australia.
Phillip CasseyThe University of Adelaide, School of Biological Sciences and Environment Institute, Adelaide, SA, 5005, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2626-0172
Laura G O'ConnellDepartment of Geological Sciences and Geological Engineering, Queen's University, Kingston, K7L 3N6, Ontario, Canada.
Bronwyn M GillandersThe University of Adelaide, School of Biological Sciences and Environment Institute, Adelaide, SA, 5005, Australia. bronwyn.gillanders@adelaide.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7680-2240

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Understanding the spatial distribution of human impacts on marine environments is necessary for maintaining healthy ecosystems and supporting 'blue economies'. Realistic assessments of impact must consider the cumulative impacts of multiple, coincident threats and the differing vulnerabilities of ecosystems to these threats. Expert knowledge is often used to assess impact in marine ecosystems because empirical data are lacking; however, this introduces uncertainty into the results. As part of a spatial cumulative impact assessment for Spencer Gulf, South Australia, we asked experts to estimate score ranges (best-case, most-likely and worst-case), which accounted for their uncertainty about the effect of 32 threats on eight ecosystems. Expert scores were combined with data on the spatial pattern and intensity of threats to generate cumulative impact maps based on each of the three scoring scenarios, as well as simulations and maps of uncertainty. We compared our method, which explicitly accounts for the experts' knowledge-based uncertainty, with other approaches and found that it provides smaller uncertainty bounds, leading to more constrained assessment results. Collecting these additional data on experts' knowledge-based uncertainty provides transparency and simplifies interpretation of the outputs from spatial cumulative impact assessments, facilitating their application for sustainable resource management and conservation.

Identifiers

PMID29362389
PMCPMC5780512

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.