Monthly Archives: August 2008

132 – The mainstream media

Are you an intelligent free-thinking individual? The mainstream media can help you address this problem.

I couldn’t resist sharing this brief funny video that I came across elsewhere on the web. Click on the play button.

David Pannell, The University of Western Australia

131 – Triage in environmental management

The medical idea of triage has sometimes been discussed in relation to environmental management. Some aspects of the idea are relevant, but overall it is too limited to be useful for actual environmental decision making.

Link to page about a program on Triage on ABC Radio National where I was interviewed on Nov 4 2008 here

Imagine a medical emergency where there are many injured people and a shortage of medical resources. Some people are going to miss out on treatment. How should the doctors decide who to treat? By triage! They sort the injured into three groups: those who are too injured to survive even if they are treated, those who are not sufficiently injured to be worth treating, and the group in between that actually receives treatment.

Now imagine this idea applied to environmental problems. We would break down the environmental assets of interest into three groups. The first group is so degraded that we decide it is not worth attempting to recover them. This says something about the technical feasibility of recovery, and hints that, even if it was technically feasible, the cost of doing so would be high. The second group would be in such good condition that it doesn’t need our help. The third group, in between these extremes, gets the resources.

What’s wrong with this? Several things.

1. In the medical emergency, our aim in treating people is for them to survive (and hopefully recover fully, eventually). In the environmental case, our objective could be something quite different.

(a) Even if full recovery is not technically feasible, we may invest to seek partial recovery. In many situations, this is probably a more realistic goal. We need to weigh up the likely extent of recovery as part of the decision process.

(b) We may seek to stop the asset getting any worse than it already is. It might not be degraded at all at the moment (which would place it in one of our no-action categories if we apply the medical approach to triage) but be threatened with serious degradation if we don’t act.

(c) We may seek to stop the asset from degrading as much as it otherwise would have done. For example, in the case of dryland salinity in Australia, slowing the rate of degradation may be the most viable strategy in some cases. The extent of this reduction in future degradation would need to be factored into the decision.

(d) We may invest with the aim of adapting to a changed environment, to maintain some altered environmental values in the aftermath of, say, climate change.

(e) We might even invest with the specific intention of maintaining the environment in a radically altered state. This doesn’t seem relevant in Australia, but it is the basis of most environmental policy in Europe, for example.

These points highlight that the way to think about it is to compare outcomes with and without the proposed intervention, as in a benefit:cost analysis. We should evaluate the benefits of the intervention relative to what would have happened otherwise. The triage concept does not give us this. It ignores that some currently healthy patients are on the verge of a serious decline, and that even if we cannot fully recover some of the most injured, a partial recovery may still be very worthwhile. The with versus without perspective does pick this up.

2. In the medical emergency, we assume that all the people we could treat are of equal intrinsic merit. This is not true of environmental assets. A nature reserve with only common species would not be as valuable as one containing threatened species, for example. There is a whole range of criteria – ecological, social and economic – that might make one environmental asset intrinsically more valuable than another. This needs to be factored into the decision about which assets get the resources.

3. In the medical analogy, once the decision has been made about which group a patient belongs to, the supply of treatment follows more or less as a matter of course. The medico making the assessment of priority may be the same person who actually provides treatment, or even if they are not, the treating physicians understand the system and are likely to comply with it reasonably tightly. For many environmental problems, successful intervention requires you to alter the behaviour of a range of other people, who may or may not have any interest in the asset. Thus we need to pay attention to the motivations of relevant land and water managers, and the adoptability of the practices we would like them to adopt (Pannell et al., 2006). This too needs to be factored into the prioritisation decision. If there is no prospect of adequate adoption, we should not invest even if saving the asset is technically feasible.

4. The medical analogy operates on a short time scale: treat these people now or they will die. Some environmental problems are like that, but some operate on a much longer time scale. For example, in the case of climate change, one important response is to invest in development of new renewable energy technologies, rather than just in immediate mitigation. We invest in medical R&D as well of course, but this doesn’t feature in the triage approach either. I think the technology change option for environmental management is actually a relatively neglected one that deserves more attention (Pannell 2008).

5. Triage suggests what you should do given a fixed pool of resources, but doesn’t address the question of whether the resources should be increased or reduced.

Certainly the idea of not throwing money at something that cannot be helped is a good one, but overall triage is no substitute for a good investment framework, such as INFFER.

David Pannell, The University of Western Australia

Further Reading

Pannell, D.J. (2008). Public benefits, private benefits and policy mechanism choice for land-use change: technology change, presented at 52nd Annual Conference of the Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, Canberra, 5-8 Feb 2008. here (117K pdf file)

Pannell, D.J., Marshall, G.R., Barr, N., Curtis, A., Vanclay, F. and Wilkinson, R. (2006). Understanding and promoting adoption of conservation practices by rural landholders. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 46(11): 1407-1424.

If you or your organisation subscribes to the Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture you can access the paper at: (or you can buy a copy on-line for A$25).

130 – Mac versus Windows

Fourteen months ago I switched from Windows to Mac, a beautiful MacBook Pro. Overall, it was a mistake, so much so that I’ve decided that it is worth bearing the cost of making the switch back to Windows.

I knew that most Mac users adore their machine, and I fully expected to do so as well. I knew that there would be a learning phase and some areas of difference that would initially be uncomfortable, but which I would eventually adapt to. I expected the software to be at least as good as the Windows versions. I expected the operating systems and programs to be more intuitive. I expected it to be more reliable, and to have a high degree of consistency between programs. All this and more seemed to be promised by what I read on the net and in Mac-oriented magazines.

However, I was underwhelmed and disappointed. What were the negatives of making the switch?

First there was the learning cost. I knew this would be large, and it was – very large. As a reasonably proficient Windows XP user, one forgets just how much one knows. As a Mac user I immediately felt totally lost and incompetent, and this lasted for a long time. Of course this is not totally the Mac’s fault (it is partly, see below) but I expected it to be outweighed by the benefits, which it wasn’t.

Secondly, I was really very surprised to find that the Mac was not nearly as intuitive as I expected it would be. In Windows, I could pretty well always find what I was looking for eventually, but on the Mac things seem to be poorly described and in really odd places. I spent longer looking, and sometimes even had to just give up looking for commands or switches, which I rarely had to do in Windows.

Third was the Mac’s terrible deficiency in keyboard shortcuts. This was probably the biggest single problem for me. Without this I might just have put up with the rest, but this made it impossible to really enjoy the machine. By far the most efficient way to use computers is to use keyboard shortcuts for most things. On a Mac, you just can’t do this in any practical sense. You have to use a mouse. For example, there is no equivalent to Alt-O Alt-P (for fOrmat Paragraph). You cannot get into the menus any way other than by mouse. I reckon this has reduced my efficiency at navigating through software by 50%.

Even worse than that, where there are keyboard shortcuts for navigating around, they are highly inconsistent between different bits of software. I expected Mac to be the paragon of consistency, but actually Windows is much, much more consistent. For example here are some differences in the behaviour of arrow commands between Mail, Word and Excel. (Note that Macs use Option in place of Alt, and have two extra keys, Function and Command):

Key strokeMail (editing message)WordExcel (editing cell content)
Fn-leftMove view to beginning of emailMove cursor to beginning of lineMove cursor to beginning of line
Ctrl-leftMove cursor one character leftNothingMove cursor one word left
Optn-leftMove cursor one word leftMove cursor one word leftMove cursor one word left
Cmd-leftMove cursor to beginning of lineMove cursor one word leftNothing
Fn-upMove view one page upMove cursor one page upn.a.
Ctrl-upMove cursor one line upMove cursor one page upn.a.
Optn-upMove cursor to start of previous lineMove cursor one page upn.a.
Cmd-upMove cursor to beginning of emailMove cursor one page upn.a.

For example, the command Ctrl-left in Windows universally means move one word left. On my Mac, it can mean move one character left (in Mail), move one word left (in Excel) or do nothing (in Word). This is absolutely ridiculous and unforgivable. It means that you just can’t use these commands. The stupidity of this is absolutely staggering.

Next, the Mac versions of Microsoft Office are not straight conversions of the Windows versions. They are completely rewritten by different programmers. Even though the version I use is called Office 2004 for Mac, it is nearer to the 1997 Windows version of Office than to the 2003 version. There were some really great changes in the Windows version between 1997 and 2003, but they are just not present on the Mac, even though it was released later. The specifics that worry me are the handling of styles in Word and the handling of animations in PowerPoint.

Another major annoyance is incompatibilities in the files produced by Macs. I work a lot with other people, and they have to be able to read my files. Mac Word files are almost always readable in Windows, Excel files sometimes have problems, and PowerPoint files are a disaster. I NEVER use Mac PowerPoint. I fire up Windows and run that version. (The Mac can at least run Windows within the Mac operating system, which is impressive, but what is the point of having a Mac if you have to fire up Windows every time you want to create a PowerPoint file or share an Excel file with a colleague?)

A big problem for me was introduced when I upgraded my Mac operating system to the latest version late last year. A whole bundle of new bugs were introduced. Most of these have been fixed in updates since then, but one shocker is still a problem eight months later: every time I try to print out a file in Word, the whole program crashes and has to be restarted. I’ve discovered a work-around (printing through Preview) but this is clumsy and annoying, and if I forget, the thing crashes!

I had hoped that some of the problems might be solved by upgrading to the 2008 Mac version of Office, which is based on the 2007 Windows version. However, incredibly, the Mac programmers at Microsoft decided not to implement Visual Basic for Applications in this version of Excel. More stupidity. What were they thinking of? It means that I simply cannot upgrade, as VBA is essential to my work. Microsoft copped heaps of abuse for this, and has since announced that it will add VBA to the next major upgrade of Excel for Mac, but that’s not due for another three or four years!! Hopeless.

Finally, there is the issue of support in the workplace. My Faculty at the University or Western Australia has just declared that it will not support Macs, and I don’t blame them one bit. That’s the end for me. I’m looking at PCs. How did I persist for so long? How come other people love them so much? It’s a mystery.

To be fair I should mention those aspects that I found to better on my Mac than in Windows. The outstanding advantage is in backing up. You can very easily back up your entire hard drive onto an external drive, and you can actually boot off that external drive. It’s amazing. If the hard drive on a Mac ever died, all you’d do is put in a new one, boot from the external drive, back up from the external drive to the Mac, and you’d have an IDENTICAL computer to the one you had before the crash. There is also another form of backing up, where you can roll back to any past version of any file, which is neat, but that doesn’t include the ability to produce a bootable copy, which is too good to go past. Another advantage is very easy program installation, but beyond that I have trouble thinking of advantages that would justify making the switch. I guess one could also say that the Mac is very beautiful. It is, and the look of the operating system is very beautiful. This doesn’t count for much.

I am now running Windows on my Mac for most things, in preparation for buying a new PC. As soon as I started using Windows again as my main platform, it felt like a blessed relief. It’s not that I didn’t give the Mac a fair trial (14 months should be enough) and I did develop a reasonable proficiency in that time, but I’ve reached the conclusion that, overall, Windows XP is just better. How I’ll feel about Vista remains to be seen, but it seems a risk worth taking.

David Pannell, The University of Western Australia

p.s. 15 Feb 2009. It took me quite a while to get a new Windows laptop (due in part to my fruitless attempt to resist an absolutely appalling policy at my University that limited my choice to an HP) but I’ve now done it. For the last couple of months of relying on the Mac, it got even with me for the above column by the keyboard and mouse pad ceasing to work. The conversion back to Windows has been time consuming, but well worth it. The only thing about the Mac that I’m missing is the better backing up. The advantages of Windows are numerous. Vista is fine. I’ve stuck with Office 2003, rather than 2007, as the latter seems to require a lot of additional learning cost for no benefit that I can see. Users also complain about how slow 2007 is.

 The article generated quite a bit of correspondence, and also lots of comments from people that I met. Some people who had been considering changing to Mac thanked me for saving them. The general flavour of comments from Mac users was along the lines that I’m a jerk who doesn’t know what he’s talking about, that the things I was worried about don’t really matter, and that there are other advantages I hadn’t acknowledged. Whether I’m a jerk is for others to judge, I suppose. The suggestion that my concerns don’t really matter is ludicrous. Word crashes every time I try to print! Don’t worry about it – it’s not important. Every program has a completely different set of short cuts! So what? Just use the mouse. But that slows me down by about 50%. Don’t worry about it – it’s not important. The Mac versions of Office are highly inferior! Get over it. I can’t share my PowerPoint files with colleagues who are helping me to work on them! That doesn’t bother me, so why should it bother you? Because I made about 50 PowerPoint presentations last year, most of them in collaboration with colleagues. Tough.

 What nobody did was refute any of the criticisms I presented. How could you? They’re just factual. The main additional benefit of Macs that some claimed was greater natural resistance to viruses. But I’ve always found that virus checkers work fine. I’m so, so glad to be out of Mac world.

129 – The public: private benefits framework

Long-time readers of Pannell Discussions will recall the public: private benefits framework for selecting policy tools in environmental programs. I first presented the framework in 2006, and a lot has happened with it since then, so I thought it was time for an update.

The public: private benefits framework provides a simple graphical approach that spells out the logic for selecting the most appropriate class of policy tool for influencing the behaviour of private individuals in cases where their actions have positive or negative impacts on others in the community. It was developed in the context of land-use change for environmental management, but is relevant more broadly.

The framework has now been published in an American journal called Land Economics. The published version is an update of the original Pannell Discussions, fixing up a couple of problems in the more complex version of the framework. I’ve also done more work on the role of technology development as a policy response, and submitted the results to another journal. You can see copies of all papers at the new public: private benefits framework web page, together with a PowerPoint presentation, Excel files showing calculations and graphs, and a Frequently Asked Questions section.

The framework was originally developed as an element of SIF3, a tool for evaluating public investments in salinity management, and it is now a key part of INFFER, our more general environmental investment tool. Embedded within SIF3, the public: private benefits framework has been applied to a large number of potential projects in Victoria and Western Australia, and within INFFER, it is currently being applied in several new regions. We are encouraging governments to adopt and support INFFER as an endorsed approach for regional environmental managers to use (e.g. within the new Caring for our Country national environmental program), so with a bit of luck the public: private benefits framework will soon become well known to a lot of people.

I’ve started to see it cropping up in a number of reports and papers too. Recently I reviewed a paper for a European journal in which it had been used by some Dutch researchers, which was great to see.

All this interest! I think the key is that the simple version of the framework (which is what most people make use of) can be explained in a way that makes it feel like common sense, but actually gives people some novel insights.

David Pannell, The University of Western Australia

Further Reading

Brief summary and overview of the public: private benefits framework. Three pager (35K)

New public: private benefits framework web page.