Towards adaptive management of QoS-aware service compositions - Functional architecture

Service compositions enable users to realize their complex needs as a single request. Despite intensive research, especially in the area of business processes, web services and grids, an open and valid question is still how to manage service compositions in order to satisfy both functional and non-functional requirements as well as adapt to dynamic changes. In this paper we propose an (functional) architecture for adaptive management of QoS-aware service compositions. Comparing to the other existing architectures this one offers two major advantages. Firstly, this architecture supports various execution strategies based on dynamic selection and negotiation of services included in a service composition, contracting based on service level agreements, service enactment with flexible support for exception handling, monitoring of service level objectives, and profiling of execution data. Secondly, the architecture is built on the basis of well know existing standards to communicate and exchange data, which significantly reduces effort to integrate existing solutions and tools from different vendors. A first prototype of this architecture has been implemented within an EU-funded Adaptive Service Grid project. © 2006 Springer-Verlag.

Regulating coal seam gas in Queensland : lessons in an adaptive environmental management approach?

The current regulatory approach to coal seam gas projects in Queensland is based on the philosophy of adaptive environmental management. This method of “learning by doing” is implemented in Queensland primarily through the imposition of layered monitoring and reporting duties on the coal seam gas operator alongside obligations to compensate and “make good” harm caused. The purpose of this article is to provide a critical review of the Queensland regulatory approach to the approval and minimisation of adverse impacts from coal seam gas activities. Following an overview of the hallmarks of an effective adaptive management approach, this article begins by addressing the mosaic of approval processes and impact assessment regimes that may apply to coal seam gas projects. This includes recent Strategic Cropping Land reforms. This article then turns to consider the preconditions for land access in Queensland and the emerging issues for landholders relating to the negotiation of access and compensation agreements. This article then undertakes a critical review of the environmental duties imposed on coal seam gas operators relating to hydraulic fracturing, well head leaks, groundwater management and the disposal and beneficial use of produced water. Finally, conclusions are drawn regarding the overall effectiveness of the Queensland framework and the lessons that may be drawn from Queensland’s adaptive environmental management approach.

A history of environmental management in the field in Queensland : episodes of activity

This paper reviews a wide range of literature on environmental management in the field in Queensland, and analyzes this by period and by author. An episodic pattern of activities since European settlement is evident. Periods of exploration (pre-1950) and inventory- compilation (ca. 1950-1970) were followed by two decades of media and non-government organization campaigning (ca. 1970-1990), then an era dominated by government regulatory action (ca. 1990-2010). These eras dominated public perception of what was happening in environmental practice. They were delineated by historic ‘interventions’ (summarily, the end of World War II, the 1971 inflationary crisis, and computerization respectively).

An approach for adaptive and integrated environmental planning to deal with uncertainty in a Great Barrier Reef Catchment

This paper presents the Mossman Mill District Practices Framework. It was developed in the Wet Tropics region within the Great Barrier Reef in north-eastern Australia to describe the environmental benefits of agricultural management practices for the sugar cane industry. The framework translates complex, unclear and overlapping environmental plans, policy and legal arrangements into a simple framework of management practices that landholders can use to improve their management actions. Practices range from those that are old or outdated through to aspirational practices that have the potential to achieve desired resource condition targets. The framework has been applied by stakeholders at multiple scales to better coordinate and integrate a range of policy arrangements to improve natural resource management. It has been used to structure monitoring and evaluation in order to underpin a more adaptive approach to planning at mill district and property scale. Potentially, the framework and approach can be applied across fields of planning where adaptive management is needed. It has the potential to overcome many of the criticisms of property-scale and regional Natural Resource Management.

Analysis of the needs of the East Coast cluster regional natural resource management bodies in relation to planning for climate change adaptation

The Climate Change Adaptation for Natural Resource Management (NRM) in East Coast Australia Project aims to foster and support an effective “community of practice” for climate change adaptation within the East Coast Cluster NRM regions that will increase the capacity for adaptation to climate change through enhancements in knowledge and skills and through the establishment of long‐term collaborations. It is being delivered by six consortium research partners: * The University of Queensland (project lead) * Griffith University * University of the Sunshine Coast * CSIRO * New South Wales Office of Environment and Heritage * Queensland Department of Science, IT, Innovation and the Arts (Queensland Herbarium). The project relates to the East Coast Cluster, comprising the six coastal NRM regions and regional bodies between Rockhampton and Sydney: * Fitzroy Basin Association (FBA) * Burnett‐Mary Regional Group (BMRG) * SEQ Catchments (SEQC) * Northern Rivers Catchment Management Authority (CMA) (NRCMA) * Hunter‐Central Rivers CMA (HCRCMA) * Hawkesbury Nepean CMA (HNCMA). The aims of this report are to summarise the needs of the regional bodies in relation to NRM planning for climate change adaptation, and provide a basis for developing the detailed work plan for the research consortium. Two primary methods were used to identify the needs of the regional bodies: (1) document analysis of the existing NRM/ Catchment Action Plans (CAPs) and applications by the regional bodies for funding under Stream 1 of the Regional NRM Planning for Climate Change Fund, and; (2) a needs analysis workshop, held in May 2013 involving representatives from the research consortium partners and the regional bodies. The East Coast Cluster includes five of the ten largest significant urban areas in Australia, world heritage listed natural environments, significant agriculture, mining and extensive grazing. The three NSW CMAs have recently completed strategic level CAPs, with implementation plans to be finalised in 2014/2015. SEQC and FBA are beginning a review of their existing NRM Plans, to be completed in 2014 and 2015 respectively; while BMRG is aiming to produce a NRM and Climate Variability Action Strategy. The regional bodies will receive funding from the Australian Government through the Regional NRM Planning for Climate Change Fund (NRM Fund) to improve regional planning for climate change and help guide the location of carbon and biodiversity activities, including wildlife corridors. The bulk of the funding will be available for activities in 2013/2014, with smaller amounts available in subsequent years. Most regional bodies aim to have a large proportion of the planning work complete by the end of 2014. In addition, NSW CMAs are undergoing major structural change and will be incorporated into semi‐autonomous statutory Local Land Services bodies from 2014. Boundaries will align with local government boundaries and there will be significant change in staff and structures. The regional bodies in the cluster have a varying degree of climate knowledge. All plans recognise climate change as a key driver of change, but there are few specific actions or targets addressing climate change. Regional bodies also have varying capacity to analyse large volumes of spatial or modelling data. Due to the complex nature of natural resource management, all regional bodies work with key stakeholders (e.g. local government, industry groups, and community groups) to deliver NRM outcomes. Regional bodies therefore require project outputs that can be used directly in stakeholder engagement activities, and are likely to require some form of capacity building associated with each of the outputs to maximise uptake. Some of the immediate needs of the regional bodies are a summary of information or tools that are able to be used immediately; and a summary of the key outputs and milestone dates for the project, to facilitate alignment of planning activities with research outputs. A project framework is useful to show the linkages between research elements and the relevance of the research to the adaptive management cycle for NRM planning in which the regional bodies are engaged. A draft framework is proposed to stimulate and promote discussion on research elements and linkages; this will be refined during and following the development of the detailed project work plan. The regional bodies strongly emphasised the need to incorporate a shift to a systems based resilience approach to NRM planning, and that approach is included in the framework. The regional bodies identified that information on climate projections would be most useful at regional and subregional scale, to feed into scenario planning and impact analysis. Outputs should be ‘engagement ready’ and there is a need for capacity building to enable regional bodies to understand and use the projections in stakeholder engagement. There was interest in understanding the impacts of climate change projections on ecosystems (e.g. ecosystem shift), and the consequent impacts on the production of ecosystem services. It was emphasised that any modelling should be able to be used by the regional bodies with their stakeholders to allow for community input (i.e. no black box models). The online regrowth benefits tool was of great interest to the regional bodies, as spatial mapping of carbon farming opportunities would be relevant to their funding requirements. The NSW CMAs identified an interest in development of the tool for NSW vegetation types. Needs relating to socio‐economic information included understanding the socio‐economic determinants of carbon farming uptake and managing community expectations. A need was also identified to understand the vulnerability of industry groups as well as community to climate change impacts, and in particular understanding how changes in the flow of ecosystem services would interact with the vulnerability of these groups to impact on the linked ecologicalsocio‐economic system. Responses to disasters (particularly flooding and storm surge) and recovery responses were also identified as being of interest. An ecosystem services framework was highlighted as a useful approach to synthesising biophysical and socioeconomic information in the context of a systems based, resilience approach to NRM planning. A need was identified to develop processes to move towards such an approach to NRM planning from the current asset management approach. Examples of best practice in incorporating climate science into planning, using scenarios for stakeholder engagement in planning and processes for institutionalising learning were also identified as cross‐cutting needs. The over‐arching theme identified was the need for capacity building for the NRM bodies to best use the information available at any point in time. To this end a planners working group has been established to support the building of a network of informed and articulate NRM agents with knowledge of current climate science and capacity to use current tools to engage stakeholders in NRM planning for climate change adaptation. The planners working group would form the core group of the community of practice, with the broader group of stakeholders participating when activities aligned with their interests. In this way, it is anticipated that the Project will contribute to building capacity within the wider community to effectively plan for climate change adaptation.

Priority threat management of invasive plant species in the Lake Eyre Basin

This project is led by scientists in conservation decision appraisal and brings together a group of experts working across the Lake Eyre Basin (LEB). The LEB covers a sixth of Australia, with an array of globally significant natural values that are threatened by invasive plants, among other things. Managers at various levels are investing in attempts to control, contain and eradicate these invasive plant species, under severe time and resources limitations. To date there has been no basin-wide assessment of which weed management strategies and locations provide the best investments for maximising outcomes for biodiversity per unit cost. Further, there has been no assessment of the extent of ecosystem intactness that may be lost without effective invasive plant species management strategies. Given that there are insufficient resources to manage all invasive plant species everywhere, this information has the potential to improve current investment decisions. Here, we provide a prioritisation of invasive plant management strategies in the LEB. Prioritisation was based on cost-effectiveness for biodiversity benefits. We identify the key invasive plant species to target to protect ecosystem intactness across the bioregions of the LEB, the level of investment required and the likely reduction in invasive species dominance gained per dollar spent on each strategy. Our focus is on strategies that are technically and socially feasible and reduce the likelihood that high impact invasive plant species will dominate native ecosystems, and therefore change their form and function. The outputs of this work are designed to help guide decision-making and further planning and investment in weed management for the Basin. Experts in weed management, policy-making, community engagement, biodiversity and natural values of the Basin, attended a workshop and agreed upon 12 strategies to manage invasive plants. The strategies focused primarily on 10 weeds which were considered to have a high potential for broad, significant impacts on natural ecosystems in the next 50 years and for which feasible management strategies could be defined. Each strategy consisted of one or more supporting actions, many of which were spatially linked to IBRA (Interim Biogeographical Regionalisation of Australia) bioregions. The first strategy was an over-arching recommendation for improved mapping, information sharing, education and extension efforts in order to facilitate the more specific weed management strategies. The 10 more specific weed management strategies targeted the control and/or eradication of the following high-impact exotic plants: mesquite, parkinsonia, rubber vine, bellyache bush, cacti, mother of millions, chinee apple, athel pine and prickly acacia, as well as a separate strategy for eradicating all invasive plants from one key threatened ecological community, the GAB (Great Artesian Basin dependant) mound springs. Experts estimated the expected biodiversity benefit of each strategy as the reduction in area that an invasive plant species is likely to dominate in over a 50-year period, where dominance was defined as more than 30% coverage at a site. Costs were estimated in present day terms over 50 years largely during follow up discussions post workshop. Cost-effectiveness was then calculated for each strategy in each bioregion by dividing the average expected benefit by the average annual costs. Overall, the total cost of managing 12 invasive plant strategies over the next 50 years was estimated at $1.7 billion. It was estimated that implementation of these strategies would result in a reduction of invasive plant dominance by 17 million ha (a potential 32% reduction), roughly 14% of the LEB. If only targeting Weeds of National Significance (WONS), the total cost was estimated to be $113 million over the next 50 years. Over the next 50 years, $2.3 million was estimated to eradicate all invasive plant species from the Great Artesian Basin Mound Springs threatened ecological community. Prevention and awareness programs were another key strategy targeted across the Basin and estimated at $17.5 million in total over 50 years. The cost of controlling, eradicating and containing buffel grass were the most expensive, over $1.5 billion over 50 years; this strategy was estimated to result in a reduction in buffel grass dominance of a million ha in areas where this species is identified as an environmental problem. Buffel grass has been deliberately planted across the Basin for pasture production and is by far the most widely distributed exotic species. Its management is contentious, having economic value to many graziers while posing serious threats to biodiversity and sites of high cultural and conservation interest. The strategy for containing and locally eradicating buffel grass was a challenge to cost based on expert knowledge, possibly because of the dual nature of this species as a valued pastoral grass and environmental weed. Based on our conversations with experts, it appears that control and eradication programs for this species, in conservation areas, are growing rapidly and that information on the most cost-effective strategies for this species will continue to develop over time. The top five most cost-effective strategies for the entire LEB were for the management of: 1) parkinsonia, 2) chinee apple, 3) mesquite, 4) rubber vine and 5) bellyache bush. Chinee apple and mother of millions are not WONS and have comparatively small populations within the semi-arid bioregions of Queensland. Experts felt that there was an opportunity to eradicate these species before they had the chance to develop into high-impact species within the LEB. Prickly acacia was estimated to have one of the highest benefits, but the costs of this strategy were high, therefore it was ranked 7th overall. The buffel grass strategy was ranked the lowest (10th) in terms of cost effectiveness. The top five most cost-effective strategies within and across the bioregions were the management of: 1) parkinsonia in the Channel Country, 2) parkinsonia in the Desert Uplands, 3) mesquite in the Mitchell Grass Downs, 4) parkinsonia in the Mitchell Grass Downs, and 5) mother of millions in the Desert Uplands. Although actions for several invasive plant species like parkinsonia and prickly acacia were concentrated in the Queensland part of the LEB, the actions involved investing in containment zones to prevent the spread of these species into other states. In the NT and SA bioregions of the LEB, the management of athel pine, parkinsonia and cacti were the main strategies. While outside the scientific research goals of study, this work highlighted a number of important incidental findings that led us to make the following recommendations for future research and implementation of weed management in the Basin: • Ongoing stakeholder engagement, extension and participation is required to ensure this prioritisation effort has a positive impact in affecting on-ground decision making and planning. • Short term funding for weed management was identified as a major reason for failure of current efforts, hence future funding needs to be secure and ongoing. • Improved mapping and information sharing is essential to implement effective weed management. • Due to uncertainties in the outcomes and impacts of management options, strategies should be implemented as part of an adaptive management program. The information provided in this report can be used to guide investment for controlling high-impact invasive plant species for the benefits of biodiversity conservation. We do not present a final prioritisation of invasive plant strategies for the LEB, and we have not addressed the cultural, socio-economic or spatial components necessary for an implementation plan. Cost-effectiveness depends on the objectives used; in our case we used the intactness of ecosystems as a surrogate for expected biodiversity benefits, measured by the extent that each invasive plant species is likely to dominate in a bioregion. When other relevant factors for implementation are considered the priorities may change and some actions may not be appropriate in some locations. We present the costs, ecological benefits and cost-effectiveness of preventing, containing, reducing and eradicating the dominance of high impact invasive plants through realistic management actions over the next 50 years. In doing so, we are able to estimate the size of the weed management problem in the LEB and provide expert-based estimates of the likely outcomes and benefits of implementing weed management strategies. The priorities resulting from this work provide a prospectus for guiding further investment in management and in improving information availability.

Priority threat management of invasive animals to protect biodiversity under climate change

Climate change is a major threat to global biodiversity, and its impacts can act synergistically to heighten the severity of other threats. Most research on projecting species range shifts under climate change has not been translated to informing priority management strategies on the ground. We develop a prioritization framework to assess strategies for managing threats to biodiversity under climate change and apply it to the management of invasive animal species across one-sixth of the Australian continent, the Lake Eyre Basin. We collected information from key stakeholders and experts on the impacts of invasive animals on 148 of the region's most threatened species and 11 potential strategies. Assisted by models of current distributions of threatened species and their projected distributions, experts estimated the cost, feasibility, and potential benefits of each strategy for improving the persistence of threatened species with and without climate change. We discover that the relative cost-effectiveness of invasive animal control strategies is robust to climate change, with the management of feral pigs being the highest priority for conserving threatened species overall. Complementary sets of strategies to protect as many threatened species as possible under limited budgets change when climate change is considered, with additional strategies required to avoid impending extinctions from the region. Overall, we find that the ranking of strategies by cost-effectiveness was relatively unaffected by including climate change into decision-making, even though the benefits of the strategies were lower. Future climate conditions and impacts on range shifts become most important to consider when designing comprehensive management plans for the control of invasive animals under limited budgets to maximize the number of threatened species that can be protected.

Improved design method for biosecurity surveillance and early detection of non-indigenous rats

A recent advance in biosecurity surveillance design aims to benefit island conservation through early and improved detection of incursions by non-indigenous species. The novel aspects of the design are that it achieves a specified power of detection in a cost-managed system, while acknowledging heterogeneity of risk in the study area and stratifying the area to target surveillance deployment. The design also utilises a variety of surveillance system components, such as formal scientific surveys, trapping methods, and incidental sightings by non-biologist observers. These advances in design were applied to black rats (Rattus rattus) representing the group of invasive rats including R. norvegicus, and R. exulans, which are potential threats to Barrow Island, Australia, a high value conservation nature reserve where a proposed liquefied natural gas development is a potential source of incursions. Rats are important to consider as they are prevalent invaders worldwide, difficult to detect early when present in low numbers, and able to spread and establish relatively quickly after arrival. The ‘exemplar’ design for the black rat is then applied in a manner that enables the detection of a range of non-indigenous species of rat that could potentially be introduced. Many of the design decisions were based on expert opinion as data gaps exist in empirical data. The surveillance system was able to take into account factors such as collateral effects on native species, the availability of limited resources on an offshore island, financial costs, demands on expertise and other logistical constraints. We demonstrate the flexibility and robustness of the surveillance system and discuss how it could be updated as empirical data are collected to supplement expert opinion and provide a basis for adaptive management. Overall, the surveillance system promotes an efficient use of resources while providing defined power to detect early rat incursions, translating to reduced environmental, resourcing and financial costs.

Ecological aspects of biosecurity surveillance design for the detection of multiple invasive animal species

Complex surveillance problems are common in biosecurity, such as prioritizing detection among multiple invasive species, specifying risk over a heterogeneous landscape, combining multiple sources of surveillance data, designing for specified power to detect, resource management, and collateral effects on the environment. Moreover, when designing for multiple target species, inherent biological differences among species result in different ecological models underpinning the individual surveillance systems for each. Species are likely to have different habitat requirements, different introduction mechanisms and locations, require different methods of detection, have different levels of detectability, and vary in rates of movement and spread. Often there is a further challenge of a lack of knowledge, literature, or data, for any number of the above problems. Even so, governments and industry need to proceed with surveillance programs which aim to detect incursions in order to meet environmental, social and political requirements. We present an approach taken to meet these challenges in one comprehensive and statistically powerful surveillance design for non-indigenous terrestrial vertebrates on Barrow Island, a high conservation nature reserve off the Western Australian coast. Here, the possibility of incursions is increased due to construction and expanding industry on the island. The design, which includes mammals, amphibians and reptiles, provides a complete surveillance program for most potential terrestrial vertebrate invaders. Individual surveillance systems were developed for various potential invaders, and then integrated into an overall surveillance system which meets the above challenges using a statistical model and expert elicitation. We discuss the ecological basis for the design, the flexibility of the surveillance scheme, how it meets the above challenges, design limitations, and how it can be updated as data are collected as a basis for adaptive management.

The Canadian ‘Model Forest’ approach : a way forward for Tasmania?

Forest policy and forestry management in Tasmania have undergone a number of changes in the last thirty years, many explicitly aimed at improving industry sustainability, job security, and forest biodiversity conservation. Yet forestry remains a contentious issue in Tasmania, due to a number of interacting factors, most significant of which is the prevalence of a ‘command and control’ governance approach by policymakers and managers. New approaches such as multiple-stakeholder decision-making, adaptive management, and direct public participation in policymaking are needed. Such an approach has been attempted in Canada in the last decade, through the Canadian Model Forest Program, and may be suitable for Tasmania. This paper seeks to describe what the Canadian Model Forest approach is, how it may be implemented in Tasmania, and what role it may play in the shift to a new forestry paradigm. Until such a paradigm shift occurs contentions and confrontations are likely to continue.

Integration of science and monitoring of river ecosystem health to guide investments in catchment protection and rehabilitation

1. Stream ecosystem health monitoring and reporting need to be developed in the context of an adaptive process that is clearly linked to identified values and objectives, is informed by rigorous science, guides management actions and is responsive to changing perceptions and values of stakeholders. To be effective, monitoring programmes also need to be underpinned by an understanding of the probable causal factors that influence the condition or health of important environmental assets and values. This is often difficult in stream and river ecosystems where multiple stressors, acting at different spatial and temporal scales, interact to affect water quality, biodiversity and ecosystem processes. 2. In this article, we describe the development of a freshwater monitoring programme in South East Queensland, Australia, and how this has been used to report on ecosystem health at a regional scale and to guide investments in catchment protection and rehabilitation. We also discuss some of the emerging science needs to identify the appropriate scale and spatial arrangement of rehabilitation to maximise river ecosystem health outcomes and, at the same time, derive other benefits downstream. 3. An objective process was used to identify potential indicators of stream ecosystem health and then test these across a known catchment land-use disturbance gradient. From the 75 indicators initially tested, 22 from five indicator groups (water quality, ecosystem metabolism, nutrient cycling, invertebrates and fish) responded strongly to the disturbance gradient, and 16 were subsequently recommended for inclusion in the monitoring programme. The freshwater monitoring programme was implemented in 2002, funded by local and State government authorities, and currently involves the assessment of over 120 sites, twice per year. This information, together with data from a similar programme on the region's estuarine and coastal marine waters, forms the basis of an annual report card that is presented in a public ceremony to local politicians and the broader community. 4. Several key lessons from the SEQ Healthy Waterways Programme are likely to be transferable to other regional programmes aimed at improving aquatic ecosystem health, including the importance of a shared common vision, the involvement of committed individuals, a cooperative approach, the need for defensible science and effective communication. 5. Thematic implications: this study highlights the use of conceptual models and objective testing of potential indicators against a known disturbance gradient to develop a freshwater ecosystem health monitoring programme that can diagnose the probable causes of degradation from multiple stressors and identify the appropriate spatial scale for rehabilitation or protection. This approach can lead to more targeted management investments in catchment protection and rehabilitation, greater public confidence that limited funds are being well spent and better outcomes for stream and river ecosystem health.

Knowledge gain or system benefit in environmental decision making?

The quality of environmental decisions are gauged according to the management objectives of a conservation project. Management objectives are generally about maximising some quantifiable measure of system benefit, for instance population growth rate. They can also be defined in terms of learning about the system in question, in such a case actions would be chosen that maximise knowledge gain, for instance in experimental management sites. Learning about a system can also take place when managing practically. The adaptive management framework (Walters 1986) formally acknowledges this fact by evaluating learning in terms of how it will improve management of the system and therefore future system benefit. This is taken into account when ranking actions using stochastic dynamic programming (SDP). However, the benefits of any management action lie on a spectrum from pure system benefit, when there is nothing to be learned about the system, to pure knowledge gain. The current adaptive management framework does not permit management objectives to evaluate actions over the full range of this spectrum. By evaluating knowledge gain in units distinct to future system benefit this whole spectrum of management objectives can be unlocked. This paper outlines six decision making policies that differ across the spectrum of pure system benefit through to pure learning. The extensions to adaptive management presented allow specification of the relative importance of learning compared to system benefit in management objectives. Such an extension means practitioners can be more specific in the construction of conservation project objectives and be able to create policies for experimental management sites in the same framework as practical management sites.

Managing and learning with multiple models: Objectives and optimization algorithms

The quality of environmental decisions should be gauged according to managers' objectives. Management objectives generally seek to maximize quantifiable measures of system benefit, for instance population growth rate. Reaching these goals often requires a certain degree of learning about the system. Learning can occur by using management action in combination with a monitoring system. Furthermore, actions can be chosen strategically to obtain specific kinds of information. Formal decision making tools can choose actions to favor such learning in two ways: implicitly via the optimization algorithm that is used when there is a management objective (for instance, when using adaptive management), or explicitly by quantifying knowledge and using it as the fundamental project objective, an approach new to conservation.This paper outlines three conservation project objectives - a pure management objective, a pure learning objective, and an objective that is a weighted mixture of these two. We use eight optimization algorithms to choose actions that meet project objectives and illustrate them in a simulated conservation project. The algorithms provide a taxonomy of decision making tools in conservation management when there is uncertainty surrounding competing models of system function. The algorithms build upon each other such that their differences are highlighted and practitioners may see where their decision making tools can be improved. © 2010 Elsevier Ltd.

Managing moose harvests by the seat of your pants

Moose populations are managed for sustainable yield balanced against costs caused by damage to forestry or agriculture and collisions with vehicles. Optimal harvests can be calculated based on a structured population model driven by data on abundance and the composition of bulls, cows, and calves obtained by aerial-survey monitoring during winter. Quotas are established by the respective government agency and licenses are issued to hunters to harvest an animal of specified age or sex during the following autumn. Because the cost of aerial monitoring is high, we use a Management Strategy Evaluation to evaluate the costs and benefits of periodic aerial surveys in the context of moose management. Our on-the-fly "seat of your pants" alternative to independent monitoring is management based solely on the kill of moose by hunters, which is usually sufficient to alert the manager to declines in moose abundance that warrant adjustments to harvest strategies. Harvests are relatively cheap to monitor; therefore, data can be obtained each year facilitating annual adjustments to quotas. Other sources of "cheap" monitoring data such as records of the number of moose seen by hunters while hunting also might be obtained, and may provide further useful insight into population abundance, structure and health. Because conservation dollars are usually limited, the high cost of aerial surveys is difficult to justify when alternative methods exist. © 2012 Elsevier Inc.