Literature DB >> 19688917

Structured decision making as a conceptual framework to identify thresholds for conservation and management.

Julien Martin1, Michael C Runge, James D Nichols, Bruce C Lubow, William L Kendall.   

Abstract

Thresholds and their relevance to conservation have become a major topic of discussion in the ecological literature. Unfortunately, in many cases the lack of a clear conceptual framework for thinking about thresholds may have led to confusion in attempts to apply the concept of thresholds to conservation decisions. Here, we advocate a framework for thinking about thresholds in terms of a structured decision making process. The purpose of this framework is to promote a logical and transparent process for making informed decisions for conservation. Specification of such a framework leads naturally to consideration of definitions and roles of different kinds of thresholds in the process. We distinguish among three categories of thresholds. Ecological thresholds are values of system state variables at which small changes bring about substantial changes in system dynamics. Utility thresholds are components of management objectives (determined by human values) and are values of state or performance variables at which small changes yield substantial changes in the value of the management outcome. Decision thresholds are values of system state variables at which small changes prompt changes in management actions in order to reach specified management objectives. The approach that we present focuses directly on the objectives of management, with an aim to providing decisions that are optimal with respect to those objectives. This approach clearly distinguishes the components of the decision process that are inherently subjective (management objectives, potential management actions) from those that are more objective (system models, estimates of system state). Optimization based on these components then leads to decision matrices specifying optimal actions to be taken at various values of system state variables. Values of state variables separating different actions in such matrices are viewed as decision thresholds. Utility thresholds are included in the objectives component, and ecological thresholds may be embedded in models projecting consequences of management actions. Decision thresholds are determined by the above-listed components of a structured decision process. These components may themselves vary over time, inducing variation in the decision thresholds inherited from them. These dynamic decision thresholds can then be determined using adaptive management. We provide numerical examples (that are based on patch occupancy models) of structured decision processes that include all three kinds of thresholds.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19688917     DOI: 10.1890/08-0255.1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ecol Appl        ISSN: 1051-0761            Impact factor:   4.657


  21 in total

1.  Developing objectives with multiple stakeholders: adaptive management of horseshoe crabs and Red Knots in the Delaware Bay.

Authors:  Conor P McGowan; James E Lyons; David R Smith
Journal:  Environ Manage       Date:  2014-12-24       Impact factor: 3.266

2.  Epidemic growth rates and host movement patterns shape management performance for pathogen spillover at the wildlife-livestock interface.

Authors:  Kezia R Manlove; Laura M Sampson; Benny Borremans; E Frances Cassirer; Ryan S Miller; Kim M Pepin; Thomas E Besser; Paul C Cross
Journal:  Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci       Date:  2019-08-12       Impact factor: 6.237

Review 3.  Mitigating amphibian chytridiomycoses in nature.

Authors:  Trenton W J Garner; Benedikt R Schmidt; An Martel; Frank Pasmans; Erin Muths; Andrew A Cunningham; Che Weldon; Matthew C Fisher; Jaime Bosch
Journal:  Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci       Date:  2016-12-05       Impact factor: 6.237

4.  A structured approach to incidental take decision making.

Authors:  Conor P McGowan
Journal:  Environ Manage       Date:  2012-11-21       Impact factor: 3.266

5.  Application of thresholds of potential concern and limits of acceptable change in the condition assessment of a significant wetland.

Authors:  Kerrylee Rogers; Neil Saintilan; Matthew J Colloff; Li Wen
Journal:  Environ Monit Assess       Date:  2013-04-26       Impact factor: 2.513

6.  Stakeholder Participation in Freshwater Monitoring and Evaluation Programs: Applying Thresholds of Potential Concern within Environmental Flows.

Authors:  John Conallin; Craig A McLoughlin; Josh Campbell; Roger Knight; Troy Bright; Ian Fisher
Journal:  Environ Manage       Date:  2017-09-25       Impact factor: 3.266

7.  Managing Genetic Diversity and Extinction Risk for a Rare Plains Bison (Bison bison bison) Population.

Authors:  Seth G Cherry; Jerod A Merkle; Marie Sigaud; Daniel Fortin; Greg A Wilson
Journal:  Environ Manage       Date:  2019-10-02       Impact factor: 3.266

8.  Identifying thresholds for ecosystem-based management.

Authors:  Jameal F Samhouri; Phillip S Levin; Cameron H Ainsworth
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2010-01-26       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  Meta-analysis of relationships between human offtake, total mortality and population dynamics of gray wolves (Canis lupus).

Authors:  Scott Creel; Jay J Rotella
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2010-09-29       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  Combining ecosystem services assessment with structured decision making to support ecological restoration planning.

Authors:  David M Martin; Marisa Mazzotta; Justin Bousquin
Journal:  Environ Manage       Date:  2018-04-10       Impact factor: 3.644

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.