Citation

Matsuda H. Int. J. Occup. Med. Environ. Health 2004; 17(1): 137-145.

Affiliation

Ocean Research Institute, University of Tokyo, Japan. matsuda@ynu.ac.jp

Copyright

(Copyright © 2004, Nofer Institute of Occupational Medicine, Lodz and the Polish Association of Occupational Medicine, Publisher Walter de Gruyter)

DOI

unavailable

PMID

15212217

Abstract

Before intergovernmental consensus under the Rio Declaration in 1992, ignorance of type I errors had been disfavored in science. However, the Precautionary Principle (PP) counsels the avoidance of type II errors, rather than of type I errors. We need a new academic code for the PP. The risk of extinction has usually been evaluated based on conservative estimates of the present population size. I define the weight of evidence as the extinction risk of Japanese vascular plants based on unbiased estimates. Catch quotas in the fisheries are usually decided by precautionary approach. I calculate the long-term yield and risk of stock collapse under a simple stock dynamics model. The weight of evidence depends on the frequency of grids with size unknown. In a few plant species, rankings based on conservative estimates have differed from rankings based on unbiased estimates. In fishery management, a catch quota based on a precautionary approach proved neither sufficient nor necessary to avoid stock collapse. The precautionary approach is one of the reasons that prevent us from maximizing a sustainable yield. We need to clarify the end-point of risks, and check whether it is necessary to adopt a PP. We can obtain the weight of evidence that is measured under unbiased estimates, while the risk based on a PP is measured under conservative estimates.

Language: en