Notionally objective probabilistic risk models, built around ideas of cause and effect, are used to predict impacts and evaluate trade-offs. In this paper, we focus on the use of expert judgement to fill gaps left by insufficient data and understanding. Psychological and contextual phenomena such as anchoring, availability bias, confirmation bias and overconfidence are pervasive and have powerful effects on individual judgements. Research across a range of fields has found that groups have access to more diverse information and ways of thinking about problems, and routinely outperform credentialled individuals on judgement and prediction tasks. In structured group elicitation, individuals make initial independent judgements, opinions are respected, participants consider the judgements made by others, and they may have the opportunity to reconsider and revise their initial estimates. Estimates may be aggregated using behavioural, mathematical or combined approaches. In contrast, mathematical modelers have been slower to accept that the host of psychological frailties and contextual biases that afflict judgements about parameters and events may also influence model assumptions and structures. Few, if any, quantitative risk analyses embrace sources of uncertainty comprehensively. However, several recent innovations aim to anticipate behavioural and social biases in model construction and to mitigate their effects. In this paper, we outline approaches to eliciting and combining alternative ideas of cause and effect. We discuss the translation of ideas into equations and assumptions, assessing the potential for psychological and social factors to affect the construction of models. We outline the strengths and weaknesses of recent advances in structured, group-based model construction that may accommodate a variety of understandings about cause and effect.

BackgroundSchool-based professionals often report high burnout, particularly in geographic areas like Appalachia, where school-aged children are exposed to high levels of adverse childhood experiences, which may be exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic. While school-based mindfulness trainings can reduce burnout, their efficacy is influenced by the expectations of intervention personnel ahead of implementation. The present study assessed expectations and perceptions of a school-based mindfulness training among school personnel in 21 Appalachian schools during the COVID-19 pandemic.MethodsUpon enrollment in the training, staff (N = 191) responded to open ended survey questions regarding perceived impacts of COVID-19 on students, expected benefits and barriers to school-based mindfulness, and perceived community acceptance of mindfulness.ResultsSchool personnel identified social isolation and lack of structure as negative impacts of COVID-19 on students. Expected benefits of classroom mindfulness included improved coping skills, focus, and emotion regulation, whereas barriers included lack of time and student ability level (e.g., age, attention). While most respondents indicated that their community was accepting of mindfulness practices, some noted resistance to and misperceptions of mindfulness, which may illustrate the influence of local cultural norms and values on the acceptability of mental health interventions.ConclusionsOverall, these findings suggest positive expectations and relative perceived support for mindfulness practices within these Appalachian communities, including in response to negative impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on students. Adapting practices and language to accommodate barriers such as time, student ability, and cultural misconceptions of mindfulness may increase the feasibility and efficacy of these interventions.

No abstract

Demand is increasing amongst investors to create portfolios that encourage positive outcomes for biological diversity. The evolution of investment strategies for transitions to zero carbon over the last two decades provides insights that will assist in shaping strategies for biodiversity-positive investments. Many emerging approaches to capture company impact and dependence on biodiversity focus on nature-related threats to an organisation by looking at the composition of local ecosystems and sustaining ecosystem services. Other approaches have a different objective function, focusing on minimizing an organisation’s contribution to risks of species extinction by using data sets such as the IUCN’s Red List of Threatened Species. However, in both cases, many of the threat assessments that could link corporate activities to impacts are incomplete and omit critical information, and the models that use these links are largely untested for use in portfolio construction. If the investment community focuses on biodiversity without sufficient forethought, there is a risk of entrenching metrics with significant flaws. In this paper we suggest that until such time as species threat assessments are complete and the metrics to which they contribute are fully developed and tested for use, interim approaches to guide investments can leverage off disclosure-based or taxonomy-based approaches developed for climate investing. We present and discuss two potential such metrics, a Biodiversity Management Quality metric and a Biodiversity Revenues metric.

No abstract