What makes a good risk-based decision in biosecurity?

We all hope that our risk assessments will be used by decision makers, resulting in better decisions. But to know if risk assessments result in better decisions, we need to be able to judge the quality of decision, and this is surprisingly difficult. We interviewed 39 participants in Aotearoa New Zealand’s biosecurity system to understand how they judged decisions. Participants were drawn from central government, local government, primary industry, infrastructure, non-governmental and Māori organisations, and included those making decisions as well as those affected by decisions. In semi-structured interviews, participants were asked what characterised a “good” biosecurity decision from their perspective. We used thematic analysis to identify emergent themes across participant responses. Although interview questions asked separately about biosecurity decisions, decision-making processes and decision makers, participant responses frequently conflated these, suggesting they are closely entwined. Outcome had an important influence on how decisions were judged. However, there were a number of other factors which participants considered important to good decision-making, including being well-informed, involving the right people in the right way, having a clear purpose, being transparent and being based on long-term thinking. Participants spoke of the importance of making decisions promptly, but also of ensuring enough time was taken. These results differ from critical reviews of the biosecurity system by consultants and government reviewers, which typically focused on making well-informed, prompt, transparent and consistent decisions. The results contribute to a more nuanced understanding of what makes “good” biosecurity decisions from the perspectives of both decision makers and affected stakeholders.