Making robust decisions for conservation with restricted money and knowledge

1. In conservation decision-making, we operate within the confines of limited funding. Furthermore, we often assume particular relationships between management impact and our investment in management. The structure of these relationships, however, is rarely known with certainty - there is model uncertainty. We investigate how these two fundamentally limiting factors in conservation management, money and knowledge, impact optimal decision-making. 2. We use information-gap decision theory to find strategies for maximizing the number of extant subpopulations of a threatened species that are most immune to failure due to model uncertainty. We thus find a robust framework for exploring optimal decision-making. 3. The performance of every strategy decreases as model uncertainty increases. 4. The strategy most robust to model uncertainty depends not only on what performance is perceived to be acceptable but also on available funding and the time horizon over which extinction is considered. 5. Synthesis and applications. We investigate the impact of model uncertainty on robust decision-making in conservation and how this is affected by available conservation funding. We show that subpopulation triage can be a natural consequence of robust decision-making. We highlight the need for managers to consider triage not as merely giving up, but as a tool for ensuring species persistence in light of the urgency of most conservation requirements, uncertainty and the poor state of conservation funding. We illustrate this theory by a specific application to allocation of funding to reduce poaching impact on the Sumatran tiger Panthera tigris sumatrae in Kerinci Seblat National Park. © 2008 The Authors.

Robust conservation decision-making

Decision-making for conservation is conducted within the margins of limited funding. Furthermore, to allocate these scarce resources we make assumptions about the relationship between management impact and expenditure. The structure of these relationships, however, is rarely known with certainty. We present a summary of work investigating the impact of model uncertainty on robust decision-making in conservation and how this is affected by available conservation funding. We show that achieving robustness in conservation decisions can require a triage approach, and emphasize the need for managers to consider triage not as surrendering but as rational decision making to ensure species persistence in light of the urgency of the conservation problems, uncertainty, and the poor state of conservation funding. We illustrate this theory by a specific application to allocation of funding to reduce poaching impact on the Sumatran tiger Panthera tigris sumatrae in Kerinci Seblat National Park, Indonesia. To conserve our environment, conservation managers must make decisions in the face of substantial uncertainty. Further, they must deal with the fact that limitations in budgets and temporal constraints have led to a lack of knowledge on the systems we are trying to preserve and on the benefits of the actions we have available (Balmford & Cowling 2006). Given this paucity of decision-informing data there is a considerable need to assess the impact of uncertainty on the benefit of management options (Regan et al. 2005). Although models of management impact can improve decision making (e.g.Tenhumberg et al. 2004), they typically rely on assumptions around which there is substantial uncertainty. Ignoring this 'model uncertainty', can lead to inferior decision-making (Regan et al. 2005), and potentially, the loss of the species we are trying to protect. Current methods used in ecology allow model uncertainty to be incorporated into the model selection process (Burnham & Anderson 2002; Link & Barker 2006), but do not enable decision-makers to assess how this uncertainty would change a decision. This is the basis of information-gap decision theory (info-gap); finding strategies most robust to model uncertainty (Ben-Haim 2006). Info-gap has permitted conservation biology to make the leap from recognizing uncertainty to explicitly incorporating severe uncertainty into decision-making. In this paper we present a summary of McDonald-Madden et al (2008a) who use an info-gap framework to address the impact of uncertainty in the functional representations of biological systems on conservation decision-making. Furthermore, we highlight the importance of two key elements limiting conservation decision-making - funding and knowledge - and how they interact to influence the best management strategy for a threatened species. Copyright © ASCE 2011.

Resource allocation in two species systems: Is it worth acknowledging species interactions?

It is becoming increasingly popular to consider species interactions when managing ecological foodwebs. Such an approach is useful in determining how management can affect multiple species, with either beneficial or detrimental consequences. Identifying such actions is particularly valuable in the context of conservation decision making as funding is severely limited. This paper outlines a new approach that simplifies the resource allocation problem in a two species system for a range of species interactions: independent, mutualism, predator-prey, and competitive exclusion. We assume that both species are endangered and we do not account for decisions over time. We find that optimal funding allocation is to the conservation of the species with the highest marginal gain in expected probability of survival and that, across all except mutualist interaction types, optimal conservation funding allocation differs between species. Loss in efficiency from ignoring species interactions was most severe in predator-prey systems. The funding problem we address, where an ecosystem includes multiple threatened species, will only become more commonplace as increasing numbers of species worldwide become threatened. © 2011 Elsevier B.V.

Endangerment and Likeability of Wildlife Species: How Important are they for Payments Proposed for Conservation?

This paper examines empirically the relative influence of the degree of endangerment of wildlife species and their stated likeability on individuals' allocation of funds for their conservation. To do this, it utilises data obtained from the IUCN Red List, and likeability and fund allocation data obtained from two serial surveys of a sample of the Australian public who were requested to assess 24 Australian wildlife species from three animal classes: mammals, birds and reptiles. Between the first and second survey, respondents were provided with extra information about the focal species. This information resulted in the dominance of endangerment as the major influence on the allocation of funding of respondents for the conservation of the focal wildlife species. Our results throw doubts on the proposition in the literature that the likeability of species is the dominant influence on willingness to pay for conservation of wildlife species. Furthermore, because the public's allocation of fund for conserving wildlife species seems to be more sensitive to information about the conservation status of species than to factors influencing their likeability, greater attention to providing accurate information about the former than the latter seems justified. Keywords: Conservation of wildlife species; Contingent valuation; Endangerment of species; Likeability of species; Willingness to pay

Prioritizing land and sea conservation investments to protect coral reefs

Background: Coral reefs have exceptional biodiversity, support the livelihoods of millions of people, and are threatened by multiple human activities on land (e.g. farming) and in the sea (e.g. overfishing). Most conservation efforts occur at local scales and, when effective, can increase the resilience of coral reefs to global threats such as climate change (e.g. warming water and ocean acidification). Limited resources for conservation require that we efficiently prioritize where and how to best sustain coral reef ecosystems.----- ----- Methodology/Principal Findings: Here we develop the first prioritization approach that can guide regional-scale conservation investments in land-and sea-based conservation actions that cost-effectively mitigate threats to coral reefs, and apply it to the Coral Triangle, an area of significant global attention and funding. Using information on threats to marine ecosystems, effectiveness of management actions at abating threats, and the management and opportunity costs of actions, we calculate the rate of return on investment in two conservation actions in sixteen ecoregions. We discover that marine conservation almost always trumps terrestrial conservation within any ecoregion, but terrestrial conservation in one ecoregion can be a better investment than marine conservation in another. We show how these results could be used to allocate a limited budget for conservation and compare them to priorities based on individual criteria.----- ----- Conclusions/Significance: Previous prioritization approaches do not consider both land and sea-based threats or the socioeconomic costs of conserving coral reefs. A simple and transparent approach like ours is essential to support effective coral reef conservation decisions in a large and diverse region like the Coral Triangle, but can be applied at any scale and to other marine ecosystems.

Using conservation evidence to guide management

Almost 10 years ago, Pullin and Knight (2001) called for an “effectiveness revolution in conservation” to be enabled by the systematic evaluation of evidence for conservation decision making. Drawing from the model used in clinicalmedicine, they outlined the concept of “evidencebased conservation” in which existing information, or evidence, from relevant and rigorous research is compiled and analyzed in a systematic manner to inform conservation actions (Cochrane 1972). The promise of evidencebased conservation has generated significant interest; 25 systematic reviews have been completed since 2004 and dozens are underway (Collaboration for Environmental Evidence 2010). However we argue that an “effectiveness revolution” (Pullin & Knight 2001) in conservation will not be possible unless mechanisms are devised for incorporating the growing evidence base into decision frameworks. For conservation professionals to accomplish the missions of their organizations they must demonstrate that their actions actually achieve objectives (Pullin & Knight 2009). Systematic evaluation provides a framework for objectively evaluating the effectiveness of actions. To leverage the benefit of these evaluations, we need resource-allocation systems that are responsive to their outcomes. The allocation of conservation resources is often the product of institutional priorities or reliance on intuition (Sutherland et al. 2004; Pullin & Knight 2005; Cook et al. 2010). We highlight the NICE technologyappraisal process because it provides an example of formal integration of systematic-evidence evaluation with provision of guidance for action. The transparent process, which clearly delineates costs and benefits of each alternative action, could also provide the public with new insight into the environmental effects of different decisions. This insight could stimulate a wider discussion about investment in conservation by demonstrating how changes in funding might affect the probability of achieving conservation objectives. ©2010 Society for Conservation Biology

Common And Endangered Species: How Does Society Allocate Support For Their Conservation

Examines how society allocates support for species’ conservation when numbers involved are large and resources are limited. Rational behaviour suggests that species in urgent need of conservation will receive more support than those species that are common. However, we demonstrate that in the absence of balanced knowledge common species will receive support more than they would otherwise receive despite society placing high existence values on all species. Twenty four species, both common and endangered and some with a restricted distribution, are examined. We demonstrate that balanced information is vital in order to direct more support for species that are endangered than those that are not. Implications for conservation stemming from the findings are discussed.

Economic issues in funding and supplying public sector information

In May 2005, a research team began to investigate whether designing and implementing a whole-of-government information licensing framework was possible. This framework was needed to administer copyright in relation to information produced by the government and to deal properly with privately-owned copyright on which government works often rely. The outcome so far is the design of the Government Information Licensing Framework (GILF) and its gradual uptake within a number of Commonwealth and State government agencies. However, licensing is part of a larger issue in managing public sector information (PSI); and it has important parallels with the management of libraries and public archives. Among other things, managing the retention and supply of PSI requires an ability to search and locate information, ability to give public access to the information legally, and an ability to administer charges for supplying information wherever it is required by law. The aim here is to provide a summary overview of pricing principles as they relate to the supply of PSI.