Polar Bear Population Forecasts: A Public-Policy Forecasting Audit

Calls to list polar bears as a threatened species under the United States Endangered Species Act are based on forecasts of substantial long-term declines in their population. Nine government reports were written to help U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service managers decide whether or not to list polar bear...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Armstrong, J. Scott, Green, Kesten C, Soon, Willie
Format: Report
Language:unknown
Published: 2008
Subjects:
Online Access:https://repository.upenn.edu/handle/20.500.14332/39289
https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14332/39289
id ftunivpenn:oai:repository.upenn.edu:20.500.14332/39289
record_format openpolar
spelling ftunivpenn:oai:repository.upenn.edu:20.500.14332/39289 2024-02-04T10:04:26+01:00 Polar Bear Population Forecasts: A Public-Policy Forecasting Audit Armstrong, J. Scott Green, Kesten C Soon, Willie 2008-05-01 application/pdf https://repository.upenn.edu/handle/20.500.14332/39289 https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14332/39289 unknown https://repository.upenn.edu/handle/20.500.14332/39289 134 Marketing Papers published Forecasting Working Paper 2008 ftunivpenn https://doi.org/20.500.14332/39289 2024-01-06T23:28:33Z Calls to list polar bears as a threatened species under the United States Endangered Species Act are based on forecasts of substantial long-term declines in their population. Nine government reports were written to help U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service managers decide whether or not to list polar bears as a threatened species. We assessed these reports based on evidence-based (scientific) forecasting principles. None of the reports referred to sources of scientific forecasting methodology. Of the nine, Amstrup, Marcot, and Douglas (2007) and Hunter et al. (2007) were the most relevant to the listing decision, and we devoted our attention to them. Their forecasting procedures depended on a complex set of assumptions, including the erroneous assumption that general circulation models provide valid forecasts of summer sea ice in the regions that polar bears inhabit. Nevertheless, we audited their conditional forecasts of what would happen to the polar bear population assuming, as the authors did, that the extent of summer sea ice would decrease substantially during the coming decades. We found that Amstrup et al. properly applied 15 percent of relevant forecasting principles and Hunter et al. 10 percent. Averaging across the two papers, 46 percent of the principles were clearly contravened and 23 percent were apparently contravened. Consequently, their forecasts are unscientific and inconsequential to decision makers. We recommend that researchers apply all relevant principles properly when important public-policy decisions depend on their forecasts. Postprint version. To be published in Interfaces . Working Paper, Version 77, May 2008. URL: http://www.forecastingprinciples.com/Public_Policy/polarbear.html Report Sea ice University of Pennsylvania: ScholaryCommons@Penn
institution Open Polar
collection University of Pennsylvania: ScholaryCommons@Penn
op_collection_id ftunivpenn
language unknown
topic Forecasting
spellingShingle Forecasting
Armstrong, J. Scott
Green, Kesten C
Soon, Willie
Polar Bear Population Forecasts: A Public-Policy Forecasting Audit
topic_facet Forecasting
description Calls to list polar bears as a threatened species under the United States Endangered Species Act are based on forecasts of substantial long-term declines in their population. Nine government reports were written to help U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service managers decide whether or not to list polar bears as a threatened species. We assessed these reports based on evidence-based (scientific) forecasting principles. None of the reports referred to sources of scientific forecasting methodology. Of the nine, Amstrup, Marcot, and Douglas (2007) and Hunter et al. (2007) were the most relevant to the listing decision, and we devoted our attention to them. Their forecasting procedures depended on a complex set of assumptions, including the erroneous assumption that general circulation models provide valid forecasts of summer sea ice in the regions that polar bears inhabit. Nevertheless, we audited their conditional forecasts of what would happen to the polar bear population assuming, as the authors did, that the extent of summer sea ice would decrease substantially during the coming decades. We found that Amstrup et al. properly applied 15 percent of relevant forecasting principles and Hunter et al. 10 percent. Averaging across the two papers, 46 percent of the principles were clearly contravened and 23 percent were apparently contravened. Consequently, their forecasts are unscientific and inconsequential to decision makers. We recommend that researchers apply all relevant principles properly when important public-policy decisions depend on their forecasts. Postprint version. To be published in Interfaces . Working Paper, Version 77, May 2008. URL: http://www.forecastingprinciples.com/Public_Policy/polarbear.html
format Report
author Armstrong, J. Scott
Green, Kesten C
Soon, Willie
author_facet Armstrong, J. Scott
Green, Kesten C
Soon, Willie
author_sort Armstrong, J. Scott
title Polar Bear Population Forecasts: A Public-Policy Forecasting Audit
title_short Polar Bear Population Forecasts: A Public-Policy Forecasting Audit
title_full Polar Bear Population Forecasts: A Public-Policy Forecasting Audit
title_fullStr Polar Bear Population Forecasts: A Public-Policy Forecasting Audit
title_full_unstemmed Polar Bear Population Forecasts: A Public-Policy Forecasting Audit
title_sort polar bear population forecasts: a public-policy forecasting audit
publishDate 2008
url https://repository.upenn.edu/handle/20.500.14332/39289
https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14332/39289
genre Sea ice
genre_facet Sea ice
op_source 134
Marketing Papers
published
op_relation https://repository.upenn.edu/handle/20.500.14332/39289
op_doi https://doi.org/20.500.14332/39289
_version_ 1789972896443006976