Title: Finnish paper assesses weed risk assessment methods
A recently published Finnish conference paper may be of interest to weed risk assessors. The full paper is available in English, however, the abstract was not translated. An excerpt should give an idea of the subject-matter: "[A] ranking tools does not provide an absolute hierarchy. Rather, it is a basis for decision-making and for detecting hazards that require attention. Prioritisation does not directly tell us how much to spend on each hazard. Rather, it is a way of thinking through the problem analytically in the face of uncertainty in order to achieve a better overall allocation of scarce societal resources. Ryan (2006) summarises the benefits of prioritisation as 1) more efficient resource allocation; 2) transparent basis for decisionmaking; 3) conceptualisation of the problem; and 4) a quantitative aid to decision-making when there are conflicting objectives that are measured in different units. Finally, as Hiebert and Stubbendieck (1993) point out, the prioritisation tool should be used correctly and by able operators. The numbers themselves have little meaning – the objective is to differentiate the hazards by their level of risk. Prioritisation is also not a static exercise since the risk presented by the organisms varies in time and space. Hence, prioritisation should be regularly updated. All frameworks are designed to support decision-making. They are not decision automats and should never be used as such.
The citation details are:
Heikkilä, J. 2010. Perspectives on diseases and pest prioritisation. Proceedings of Agricultural Science Day 2010" The Global Challenges of Agricultural Research Directions. 12 - 13 January, Viikki, Finland.