Eliciting Expert Knowledge in Conservation Science

Expert knowledge is used widely in the science and practice of conservation because of the complexity of problems, relative lack of data, and the imminent nature of many conservation decisions. Expert knowledge is substantive information on a particular topic that is not widely known by others. An expert is someone who holds this knowledge and who is often deferred to in its interpretation. We refer to predictions by experts of what may happen in a particular context as expert judgments. In general, an expert-elicitation approach consists of five steps: deciding how information will be used, determining what to elicit, designing the elicitation process, performing the elicitation, and translating the elicited information into quantitative statements that can be used in a model or directly to make decisions. This last step is known as encoding. Some of the considerations in eliciting expert knowledge include determining how to work with multiple experts and how to combine multiple judgments, minimizing bias in the elicited information, and verifying the accuracy of expert information. We highlight structured elicitation techniques that, if adopted, will improve the accuracy and information content of expert judgment and ensure uncertainty is captured accurately. We suggest four aspects of an expert elicitation exercise be examined to determine its comprehensiveness and effectiveness: study design and context, elicitation design, elicitation method, and elicitation output. Just as the reliability of empirical data depends on the rigor with which it was acquired so too does that of expert knowledge.

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.

Subpopulation triage: How to allocate conservation effort among populations

Threatened species often exist in a small number of isolated subpopulations. Given limitations on conservation spending, managers must choose from strategies that range from managing just one subpopulation and risking all other subpopulations to managing all subpopulations equally and poorly, thereby risking the loss of all subpopulations. We took an economic approach to this problem in an effort to discover a simple rule of thumb for optimally allocating conservation effort among subpopulations. This rule was derived by maximizing the expected number of extant subpopulations remaining given n subpopulations are actually managed. We also derived a spatiotemporally optimized strategy through stochastic dynamic programming. The rule of thumb suggested that more subpopulations should be managed if the budget increases or if the cost of reducing local extinction probabilities decreases. The rule performed well against the exact optimal strategy that was the result of the stochastic dynamic program and much better than other simple strategies (e.g., always manage one extant subpopulation or half of the remaining subpopulation). We applied our approach to the allocation of funds in 2 contrasting case studies: reduction of poaching of Sumatran tigers (Panthera tigris sumatrae) and habitat acquisition for San Joaquin kit foxes (Vulpes macrotis mutica). For our estimated annual budget for Sumatran tiger management, the mean time to extinction was about 32 years. For our estimated annual management budget for kit foxes in the San Joaquin Valley, the mean time to extinction was approximately 24 years. Our framework allows managers to deal with the important question of how to allocate scarce conservation resources among subpopulations of any threatened species. © 2008 Society for Conservation Biology.

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

Rethinking Invasion Ecologies from the Environmental Humanities

Research from a humanist perspective has much to offer in interrogating the social and cultural ramifications of invasion ecologies. The impossibility of securing national boundaries against accidental transfer and the unpredictable climatic changes of our time have introduced new dimensions and hazards to this old issue. Written by a team of international scholars, this book allows us to rethink the impact on national, regional or local ecologies of the deliberate or accidental introduction of foreign species, plant and animal. Modern environmental approaches that treat nature with naïve realism or mobilize it as a moral absolute, unaware or unwilling to accept that it is informed by specific cultural and temporal values, are doomed to fail. Instead, this book shows that we need to understand the complex interactions of ecologies and societies in the past, present and future over the Anthropocene, in order to address problems of the global environmental crisis. It demonstrates how humanistic methods and disciplines can be used to bring fresh clarity and perspective on this long vexed aspect of environmental thought and practice. Students and researchers in environmental studies, invasion ecology, conservation biology, environmental ethics, environmental history and environmental policy will welcome this major contribution to environmental humanities.

Benefits of integrating complementarity into priority threat management

Conservation decision tools based on cost-effectiveness analysis are used to assess threat management strategies for improving species persistence. These approaches rank alternative strategies by their benefit to cost ratio but may fail to identify the optimal sets of strategies to implement under limited budgets because they do not account for redundancies. We devised a multi objective optimization approach in which the complementarity principle is applied to identify the sets of threat management strategies that protect the most species for any budget. We used our approach to prioritize threat management strategies for 53 species of conservation concern in the Pilbara, Australia. We followed a structured elicitation approach to collect information on the benefits and costs of implementing 17 different conservation strategies during a 3-day workshop with 49 stakeholders and experts in the biodiversity, conservation, and management of the Pilbara. We compared the performance of our complementarity priority threat management approach with a current cost-effectiveness ranking approach. A complementary set of 3 strategies: domestic herbivore management, fire management and research, and sanctuaries provided all species with >50% chance of persistence for $4.7 million/year over 20 years. Achieving the same result cost almost twice as much ($9.71 million/year) when strategies were selected by their cost-effectiveness ranks alone. Our results show that complementarity of management benefits has the potential to double the impact of priority threat management approaches.

Accounting for management costs in sensitivity analyses of matrix population models

Traditional sensitivity and elasticity analyses of matrix population models have been used to inform management decisions, but they ignore the economic costs of manipulating vital rates. For example, the growth rate of a population is often most sensitive to changes in adult survival rate, but this does not mean that increasing that rate is the best option for managing the population because it may be much more expensive than other options. To explore how managers should optimize their manipulation of vital rates, we incorporated the cost of changing those rates into matrix population models. We derived analytic expressions for locations in parameter space where managers should shift between management of fecundity and survival, for the balance between fecundity and survival management at those boundaries, and for the allocation of management resources to sustain that optimal balance. For simple matrices, the optimal budget allocation can often be expressed as simple functions of vital rates and the relative costs of changing them. We applied our method to management of the Helmeted Honeyeater (Lichenostomus melanops cassidix; an endangered Australian bird) and the koala (Phascolarctos cinereus) as examples. Our method showed that cost-efficient management of the Helmeted Honeyeater should focus on increasing fecundity via nest protection, whereas optimal koala management should focus on manipulating both fecundity and survival simultaneously. These findings are contrary to the cost-negligent recommendations of elasticity analysis, which would suggest focusing on managing survival in both cases. A further investigation of Helmeted Honeyeater management options, based on an individual-based model incorporating density dependence, spatial structure, and environmental stochasticity, confirmed that fecundity management was the most cost-effective strategy. Our results demonstrate that decisions that ignore economic factors will reduce management efficiency. ©2006 Society for Conservation Biology.

Cost-effective suppression and eradication of invasive predators

Introduced predators can have pronounced effects on naïve prey species; thus, predator control is often essential for conservation of threatened native species. Complete eradication of the predator, although desirable, may be elusive in budget-limited situations, whereas predator suppression is more feasible and may still achieve conservation goals. We used a stochastic predator-prey model based on a Lotka-Volterra system to investigate the cost-effectiveness of predator control to achieve prey conservation. We compared five control strategies: immediate eradication, removal of a constant number of predators (fixed-number control), removal of a constant proportion of predators (fixed-rate control), removal of predators that exceed a predetermined threshold (upper-trigger harvest), and removal of predators whenever their population falls below a lower predetermined threshold (lower-trigger harvest). We looked at the performance of these strategies when managers could always remove the full number of predators targeted by each strategy, subject to budget availability. Under this assumption immediate eradication reduced the threat to the prey population the most. We then examined the effect of reduced management success in meeting removal targets, assuming removal is more difficult at low predator densities. In this case there was a pronounced reduction in performance of the immediate eradication, fixed-number, and lower-trigger strategies. Although immediate eradication still yielded the highest expected minimum prey population size, upper-trigger harvest yielded the lowest probability of prey extinction and the greatest return on investment (as measured by improvement in expected minimum population size per amount spent). Upper-trigger harvest was relatively successful because it operated when predator density was highest, which is when predator removal targets can be more easily met and the effect of predators on the prey is most damaging. This suggests that controlling predators only when they are most abundant is the "best" strategy when financial resources are limited and eradication is unlikely. © 2008 Society for Conservation Biology.

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.

The Why, What, and How of Global Biodiversity Indicators Beyond the 2010 Target

The 2010 biodiversity target agreed by signatories to the Convention on Biological Diversity directed the attention of conservation professionals toward the development of indicators with which to measure changes in biological diversity at the global scale. We considered why global biodiversity indicators are needed, what characteristics successful global indicators have, and how existing indicators perform. Because monitoring could absorb a large proportion of funds available for conservation, we believe indicators should be linked explicitly to monitoring objectives and decisions about which monitoring schemes deserve funding should be informed by predictions of the value of such schemes to decision making. We suggest that raising awareness among the public and policy makers, auditing management actions, and informing policy choices are the most important global monitoring objectives. Using four well-developed indicators of biological diversity (extent of forests, coverage of protected areas, Living Planet Index, Red List Index) as examples, we analyzed the characteristics needed for indicators to meet these objectives. We recommend that conservation professionals improve on existing indicators by eliminating spatial biases in data availability, fill gaps in information about ecosystems other than forests, and improve understanding of the way indicators respond to policy changes. Monitoring is not an end in itself, and we believe it is vital that the ultimate objectives of global monitoring of biological diversity inform development of new indicators. ©2010 Society for Conservation Biology.

Identification and characterization of flowering genes in kiwifruit : sequence conservation and role in kiwifruit flower development

Background Flower development in kiwifruit (Actinidia spp.) is initiated in the first growing season, when undifferentiated primordia are established in latent shoot buds. These primordia can differentiate into flowers in the second growing season, after the winter dormancy period and upon accumulation of adequate winter chilling. Kiwifruit is an important horticultural crop, yet little is known about the molecular regulation of flower development. Results To study kiwifruit flower development, nine MADS-box genes were identified and functionally characterized. Protein sequence alignment, phenotypes obtained upon overexpression in Arabidopsis and expression patterns suggest that the identified genes are required for floral meristem and floral organ specification. Their role during budbreak and flower development was studied. A spontaneous kiwifruit mutant was utilized to correlate the extended expression domains of these flowering genes with abnormal floral development. Conclusions This study provides a description of flower development in kiwifruit at the molecular level. It has identified markers for flower development, and candidates for manipulation of kiwifruit growth, phase change and time of flowering. The expression in normal and aberrant flowers provided a model for kiwifruit flower development.