WHIPPET: a novel tool for prioritizing invasive plant populations for regional eradication

Large geographic areas can have numerous incipient invasive plant populations that necessitate eradication. However, resources are often deficient to address every infestation. Within the United States, weed lists (either state-level or smaller unit) generally guide the prioritization of eradication of each listed species uniformly across the focus region. This strategy has several limitations that can compromise overall effectiveness, which include spending limited resources on 1) low impact populations, 2) difficult to access populations, or 3) missing high impact populations of low priority species. Therefore, we developed a novel science-based, transparent, analytical ranking tool to prioritize weed populations, instead of species, for eradication and tested it on a group of noxious weeds in California. For outreach purposes, we named the tool WHIPPET (Weed Heuristics: Invasive Population Prioritization for Eradication Tool). Using the Analytic Hierarchy Process that included expert opinion, we developed three major criteria, four sub-criteria, and four sub-sub-criteria, taking into account both species and population characteristics. Subject matter experts weighted and scored these criteria to assess the relative impact, potential spread, and feasibility of eradication (major criteria) for 100 total populations of 19 species. Species-wide population scores indicated that conspecific populations do not necessarily group together in the final ranked output. Thus, priority lists based solely on species-level characteristics are less effective compared to a blended prioritization based on both species attributes and individual population and site parameters. WHIPPET should facilitate a more efficacious decision-making process allocating limited resources to target invasive plant infestations with the greatest predicted impacts to the region under consideration.

Management objectives of Queensland fisheries: Putting the horse before the cart

A review of future management arrangements for the Queensland East Coast Trawl fishery was undertaken in 2010 to develop a management plan for the next 10 years. A key question raised at the start of the review process was: what should the management plan achieve? As with fisheries management in most countries, multiple management objectives were implicit in policy statements, but were poorly specified in some areas (particularly social objectives) and strongly identified in others (e.g., an objective of sustainability). As a start to the management review process, an analysis of what objectives the management system should aim to achieve was undertaken. A review of natural resource management objectives employed internationally was used to develop a candidate list, and the objectives most relevant to the fishery were short-listed by a scientific advisory group. Additional objectives specific to Queensland fisheries management, but not identified in the international review, were also identified and incorporated into the objective set. The relative importance of the different objectives to different stakeholder groups was assessed using the Analytic Hierarchy Process. As with other studies, the relative importance of the different objectives varied both within and between the different stakeholder groups, although general trends in preferences were observed.

Social objectives of fisheries management: What are managers' priorities?

Increasingly, social considerations are having an influence on fisheries policy as well as day-to-day management decision making. Social objectives, unlike economic or conservation objectives, are often poorly defined in fisheries policy, providing substantial leeway for managers to develop management plans in response to the perceived importance of different social outcomes, and potential inconsistencies between different fisheries and jurisdictions. In this paper, through a literature review and workshop with managers across different Australian jurisdictions, we develop a set of social objectives that may be applicable in Australian fisheries. We assess the importance of these different objectives using the Analytic Hierarchy Process, and find considerable diversity in opinion as to which social objectives fisheries management should prioritise to achieve. This diversity of opinion is not directly related to jurisdiction, but does seem related to the context and social environment in which fisheries managers are operating.